Mavelikkara Municipality vs Union of India and The Alappuzha District Co-Operative Bank Limited

K. Surendra Mohan, J.—The Mavelikkara Municipality is the petitioner in this writ petition. The complaint of the petitioner is that the second respondent who is the authority under the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (the ''Act'' for short) has passed Ext.P3 assessment order without hearing the petitioner. It is the specific contention of the petitioner that no opportunity was given to the petitioner to defend the case. It is also contended that as per the statute the petitioner had time till 7-4-2012 to prefer an appeal to the Tribunal. However, without even waiting for the expiry of the appeal period, on 13-3-2012 the second respondent issued Ext.P4 order u/s 8F of the Act demanding payment of the amount assessed and intimating that the same would be recovered from the bank account of the petitioner in the event of non-payment. Accordingly, the amount has been recovered, it is submitted. The counsel for the petitioner contends that, the impugned action of the respondents is illegal and liable to be set aside. I have also heard Adv. A. Rajasimhan who appears for the Employees Provident Fund Organisation.

It is to be noticed that Ext.P3 assessment order is dated 5-1-2012. The petitioner had an appellate remedy of challenging the same before the Tribunal. However, for reasons best known to the petitioner, no appeal was filed challenging Ext.P3. The petitioner also had the remedy of challenging Ext.P3 by filing a review petition u/s 7B of the Act. The petitioner also has not chosen to file such a review petition. Therefore, Ext.P3 has become final. This writ petition is filed on 20-6-2012, long after Ext.P3 has become final.

Though the petitioner has contended that the petitioner was not heard before passing Ext.P3 order, it is stated by the petitioner in the writ petition itself that the petitioner had been given an opportunity to present its case on 2-11-2011 by issuing Ext.P1 notice. Accordingly the petitioner''s representative had appeared before the respondent. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was then directed to produce the wages register, attendance register, cash book etc. by the second respondent.

Therefore, the same was produced on 18-11-2011 and the enquiry was adjourned to 5-12-2011 for detailed verification. On 5-12-2011 the petitioner could not appear because it was a State Government holiday. The case of the petitioner is that there was no further intimation from the second respondent thereafter. In the meantime, the Enforcement Officer under the second respondent inspected the petitioner''s office. The report of the said inspection is Ext.P2. According to the petitioner, the hearing date was adjourned from 5-12-2011 to 5-1-2012 without informing the Municipality. Therefore, there was no representation from the Municipality on the said date. In the said circumstances Ext.P3 order was passed on 5-1-2012 as stated above. It is clear from the above that the contention of the petitioner that the petitioner was not given an opportunity to defend the case is without any basis. What appears from the above sequence of events is that the petitioner had not made use of the opportunity afforded to it. The petitioner has also not availed of the remedies available under the Act to challenge Ext.P3 assessment order. Therefore, there is no justification for entertaining this writ petition at this length of time and permitting the petitioner to challenge Ext.P3. I do not find any grounds to entertain this writ petition. The same is accordingly dismissed.