Patna High Court
Raj Kumar Gupta vs The Regional Provident Fund ... on 6 May, 2025
Author: Anil Kumar Sinha
Bench: Anil Kumar Sinha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.2330 of 2023
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8924 of 2011
======================================================
Raj Kumar Gupta Son of Late Prabhu Kumar Gupta, Resident of Mohalla-
Maripur, P.S.-Kazimohammadpur, District-Muzaffarpur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Employees Provident Fund
Organisation, Bhavishyanidhi Bhawan R Block Road No. 6, Bihar, Patna
namely Mr. Shishir Kant Jha.
2. The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner Sub Regional Officer,
Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Muzaffarpur namely Mr. Manish
Mani.
3. The Recovery Officer, Sub Regional Office, Employees Provident Fund
Organisation, Muzaffarpur namely Mr. Uday Gupta.
4. The Enforcement Officer Sub Regional Office Employees Provident Fund
Organisation, Muzaffarpur namely Mr. Chandra Mohan Chaudhary.
5. The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Finance
Department, Bihar Patna namely Mr. A.K. Choudhary.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rana Ishwar Chandra, Advocate
For the EPFO : Mr. Prashant Sinha, Advocate
Ms. Ruchi Mandal, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Sarvesh Kumar Singh, AAG-13
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 06-05-2025
The petitioner has filed the present contempt
application for initiation of contempt proceeding against
opposite parties for willful and deliberate non-compliance of the
order passed by this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 8924 of 2011 dated
14.08.2018
. This Court in the said judgment quashed the order
dated 03.02.2011 passed in ATA No. 14(3) of 2009 by Tribunal
and the assessment order dated 31.10.2008/06.11.2008 and the
Patna High Court MJC No.2330 of 2023 dt.06-05-2025
order dated 24.11.2008/28.11.2008 passed by the Assessing
Authority on the same ground as mentioned in the order dated
01.07.2013 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 4061 of 2011. The Court
gave liberty to the respondents to proceed in the matter against
the petitioner in accordance with law after following the
observation made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Food
Corporation of India vs. Provident Fund Commissioner;
(1990) 1 SCC 68.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that this order has not been complied and no assessment in
terms of Food Corporation of India (supra) has been done by
the opposite parties. He placed reliance upon the information
given under Right to Information Act by the Public Information
Officer dated 24.07.2024, Annexure-P/4 to the rejoinder and
submits that it has specifically been informed to the petitioner
that no assessment order has been passed pursuant to the
direction issued by this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 8924 of 2011
dated 14.08.2018.
3. He further submits that opposite parties are
relying on the assessment order annexed along with show-cause
filed on behalf of O.P No. 2, at Annexure-A/1 dated 28.03.2018,
in order to say that direction given by this Court on 14.08.2018
Patna High Court MJC No.2330 of 2023 dt.06-05-2025
has already been complied and assessment in terms of the
judgment of Food Corporation of India (supra) has already
been done. Since order passed by this Court for re-assessment is
dated 14.08.2018, it would not be possible for the opposite
parties to comply the order prior to 14.08.2018 i.e., on
28.03.2018.
4. On the other hand learned counsel for opposite
party no.2 submits that order passed by this Court has already
been complied inasmuch as the writ petitioner filed two writ
petitions challenging the assessment order for the period March
1992 to July 2000 and for the period August 2003 to December
2007. For the first period between March 1992 to July 2000, the
petitioner filed a writ petition bearing C.W.J.C. No. 4061 of
2011, which was disposed of vide order dated 01.07.2013, by
quashing the impugned order of assessment and directing the
respondents/opposite parties to refund the amount within a
period of six weeks. The respondents/opposite parties preferred
L.P.A against the aforesaid order dated 01.07.2013 and Division
Bench of this Court vide order dated 18.09.2017, did not
interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge and
has given the observation that in case the orders passed under
Section 7(A) has duly been rejected on non-technical ground,
Patna High Court MJC No.2330 of 2023 dt.06-05-2025
the appellant can always proceed in the matter in accordance
with law after following the procedure laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Food Corporation of India
(supra).
5. Another writ petition was filed by the writ
petitioner bearing C.W.J.C. No. 8924 of 2011 for a different
period of assessment i.e., August 2003 to December 2007,
which was disposed of vide order dated 14.08.2018 in terms of
the order passed by this Court in earlier writ petition bearing
C.W.J.C. No. 4061 of 2011, with liberty to proceed in the matter
against the petitioner in accordance with law after following the
observation made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Food
Corporation of India (supra). Since, the establishment as well
as the party are the same, the respondent/opposite parties
initiated the assessment proceeding against the
establishment/petitioner jointly for both the period which was
involved in the first writ petition as well as in the second writ
petition.
6. In the assessment proceeding as per the
observation given by this Court in the first writ petition which is
similar in the second writ petition, the petitioner participated
which would be evident from paragraph no. 8 of the assessment
Patna High Court MJC No.2330 of 2023 dt.06-05-2025
order, annexed with the show-cause at Annexure-A-1. The
assessment order was passed by the competent authority on
28.03.2018.
7. He further submits that the petitioner has been
misusing the process of Court inasmuch as during pendency of
the L.P.A the petitioner filed a contempt petition bearing M.J.C.
No. 6112 of 2013 arising out of C.W.J.C. No. 4061 of 2011 i.e.,
first writ proceeding and this Court vide its order dated
07.10.2014 disposed the contempt petition with the observation
that the decision to be rendered by the Division Bench will now
govern the issue.
8. After disposal of the L.P.A., another contempt
petition was filed by the petitioner for non-compliance of the
order passed by this Court in first writ petition being C.W.J.C.
No. 4061 of 2011, which was disposed by order dated
25.04.2018, giving liberty to the petitioner to assail the order of
assessment passed by the authority under Section 7(A) before
the appropriate forum. The petitioner did not file any appeal
against the order of assessment dated 28.03.2018 and chose to
file another contempt application bearing M.J.C. No. 827 of
2020 arising out of first writ petition which was withdrawn by
the petitioner on 30.11.2020, with liberty to file an appeal.
Patna High Court MJC No.2330 of 2023 dt.06-05-2025
9. Now the fourth contempt petition has been filed
for initiation of contempt arising out of the second writ petition.
The petitioner was well aware that the assessment proceeding
under Section 7(A) initiated by the authority pursuant to the
order passed by this Court includes both period as involved in the
first writ petition as well as in the second writ petition. The
assessment order dated 28.03.2018 has been passed after
clubbing together both period of assessment involved in the writ
orders.
10. The petitioner responded in the assessment
proceeding. This Court time and again directed the petitioner to
file appeal against the assessment order dated 28.03.2018, if he
so desires but instead of filing an appeal challenging the order a
frivolous contempt petition has been filed again.
11. Having heard learned counsel for the parties,
taking into consideration the aforesaid submissions and on
perusal of the records, it appears that the order passed by this
Court in the writ petition has fully been complied.
12. The opposite parties/respondents have passed
the assessment order for both the periods, which was the subject
matter of the two writ petitions.
13. The order of assessment of the establishment
of the petitioner is dated 28.03.2018. The petitioner instead of
Patna High Court MJC No.2330 of 2023 dt.06-05-2025
challenging the order of assessment has filed the present
contempt petition which in my opinion is frivolous in nature and
in abuse of law.
14. Accordingly, the contempt petition is
dismissed of with a cost of Rs. 25,000/- to be paid by the
petitioner to the respondent authorities within two months.
15. The respondent authorities shall be at liberty to
recover the amount of cost in accordance with law as decree of
the Civil Court.
(Anil Kumar Sinha, J)
aditya/-
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE
Uploading Date 13.05.2025.
Transmission Date
