Kerala High Court
District Project Co-Ordinator vs Regional Provident Fund ... on 16 March, 2020
Author: V Raja Vijayaraghavan
Bench: V Raja Vijayaraghavan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
MONDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF MARCH 2020 / 26TH PHALGUNA, 1941
WP(C).No.6456 OF 2020(F)
PETITIONER:
DISTRICT PROJECT CO-ORDINATOR,
SAMGRA SHIKSHA KERALA (FORMERLY SARVA SHIKSHA
ABHIYAN), PALACE ROAD, THRISSUR.
RESPONDENT:
REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER-I
KOCHI, 36/685A, BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVAN, KALOOR, KOCHI-
682017.
SRI.THOMAS MATHEW NELLIMOOTTIL
SRI. S PRASHANTH, SC
SRI. SANTHOSH KUMAR, SC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
16.03.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No.6456 OF 2020 2
JUDGMENT
The petitioner, Samagra Shiksha Kerala, is the State implementing Agency of a project funded by the Human Resource Department under Government of Kerala. The said establishment is covered under the provisions of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and the sundry schemes framed thereunder. For belated remittances during the period from 08/2003 to 09/2018, proceedings were initiated against the petitioner under Section 14B and 7Q of the EPF Act, 1952. Challenging Ext.P4 order passed under Section 14B of the Act, the petitioner herein has preferred an appeal before the Tribunal which is pending consideration. Simultaneously, for levy of interest for belated remittances, proceedings under Section 7Q was initiated against the petitioner. By Ext.P5 order the petitioner herein has been called upon to pay a total sum of Rs.26,50,794/-. The petitioner challenges the aforesaid proceeding in this writ petition.
2. Heard the learned Government Pleader for the petitioner and Sri.S.Prashanth, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the EPF Organisation.
WP(C).No.6456 OF 2020 3
3. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the petitioner submits that the project is run on funds allotted by the Government and the petitioner is only an implementing agency. It is contended that due to unforeseen circumstances, the petitioner is facing huge fund shortage and they are not in a position to pay the amount. However, these aspects were not taken note of by the respondent.
4. Serious objection is raised by the learned standing counsel, who submits that the levy of interest is statutory and hence, no interference is warranted.
5. I have considered the submissions advanced.
6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arcot Textile Mills Ltd. v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner 1 has held that once the amount due is determined under Section 7Q, levy of interest is automatic. It is a statutory power which is exercised by the competent authority under the Act. It has also been held that an independent order passed under Section 7Q is not appealable. In that view of the matter, the petitioner cannot be heard to contend that the issuance of a prohibitory order to realise the amount under Section 7Q is illegal on any count.
7. At this stage, the learned Government Pleader fervently requested that the petitioner be permitted to remit the amount in 1 [2013 (16) SCC 1] WP(C).No.6456 OF 2020 4 installments. Having regard to the fervent submissions and the alleged financial hardships pleaded by the petitioner, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner can be permitted to remit the amount in 12 equal monthly installments, first of which shall commence from 01.05.2020.
Having considered all the relevant facts and taking note of the fact that the petitioner is under severe financial crisis, I direct the respondent to keep Ext.P5 in abeyance on the following conditions.
i) The petitioner shall remit a sum of Rs.26,50,794 /- with the respondent in 12 equal monthly installments, the first of which shall be payable on 1.5.2020 and followed up on the 1 st working day of every month. If the amount is paid as aforesaid without default, coercive proceedings pursuant to Ext.P5 shall remain stayed. On the petitioner committing default of payment of any two installments, the respondent may recommence the recovery proceedings.
ii) It is made clear that this order is made on the submission of the learned counsel that the petitioner is facing grave financial hardship and therefore, no further extension will be granted. This order is passed without prejudice to the right of the respondent to proceed against the WP(C).No.6456 OF 2020 5 petitioner for realization of amount, if any, or on any other heads.
This petition is dispose of.
SD/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V JUDGE sru WP(C).No.6456 OF 2020 6 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 09.11.2011 OF THE ASSISTANT P.F.COMMISSIONER, KOCHI.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER DATED 19.08.2019.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER DATED 17.09.2019.
EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF THE ABOVE SAID ORDER DATED 22.10.2019 ALLEGEDLY ISSUED UNDER SECTION 14B OF THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS ACT, 1952.
EXHIBIT P5 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 15.10.2019 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT ALLEGEDLY UNDER SECTION 7Q.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:NIL