High Court · 2025

learned counsel for respondent No.3.

2. The petitioner has preferred the present petition with the following prayers:- i. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari call for record and quash the impugned order dated 01.07.2025 passed by Chief Manager, State Bank of India, Maunath Bhanjan branch Sahadatpura, Mau (annexure No. 1 to this writ petition) ii. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to accept the outstanding amount i.e. 3,31,20,861/- in 12 monthly equal installments.

3. Facts in brief as contained in the writ petition are that the notice dated

18.03.2024 issued by the respondent No.2/Assistant/Regional Provident Fund Commissioner S.R.O. Varanasi under the provisions of Section 6, 6A and 6C read with Para 38 of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 by which a direction was given to the petitioner to make payment of Rs.3,88,10,884/-. Since the aforesaid order was not complied with, a letter dated

01.07.2025 was written by the respondent No.2/Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organization, Regional Office, Varanasi to the respondent No.3/Chief Manager, State Bank of India, Sahadatpura Maunath Bhajan Mau to submit a Bank Draft of aforesaid amount. Pursuant to the same, the aforesaid amount was deduced from the Bank Account of the petitioner on the very same day. Aggrieved with the order of recovery dated 01.07.2025 passed by the respondent No.2 and consequential order by the respondent No.3, the petitioner has preferred the present petition.

4. It is very fairly argued by learned Senior Counsel that insofar as the merits of the case, the petitioner is ready and willing to comply with the notice dated 18.03.2024 issued by the respondent No.2 but there is a shortage of funds with the petitioner, he will make payment the remaining amount in easy installments. Learned Senior Counsel also placed reliance upon the judgement and order dated 14.01.2020 passed by the Kerala High Court in Writ C No.786 of 2020 (W.) (M/S. J.J.Holidays Resorts Pvt. Ltd.,Munnar, Idukki, Represented By The Managing Director, Joseph Joseph, Manarkattu House, Palai Vs. Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Post Office Road, Thirunakkara, Kottayam-686001) which reads as follows:- The petitioner herein is a Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and is running a resort at Munnar in the State of Kerala. The establishment owned by the petitioner is covered under the provisions of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952.

2. According to the petitioner due to natural calamities including flood which beleaguered the State of Kerala in general and Munnar in particular their business went on a downward spiral and huge loss was sustained. The recession in the tourism industry did not help the cause of the petitioner either. The petitioner was therefore unable to make proper remittances of contributions with the respondent towards provident fund during the period from July 2016 to July 2018. According to the petitioner, a sum of Rs.9,69,097/- is due to the respondent and for realizing the same Exhibit P1 order has been issued under Section 8F(3)(i) of Act of 1952 directing the Branch Manager, ICICI Bank, Pala, where the petitioner is maintaining an account. The bank has been ordered to keep the account on hold and also to transfer the demanded amounts to the respondent. The petitioner contends that there was no wilful laches on their part and the non payment was not deliberate. It is in the above backdrop that the petitioner has approached this Court for a direction to the respondent to permit the petitioner to remit the amount demanded as per Exhibit P 1 in monthly installments.

3. Sri.Joy Thattil Ittoop, the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent, very fairly concedes and states in view of the quantum of amount involved, the petitioner can be permitted to wipe off the entire arrear in eight equal monthly installments.

4. I have considered the submissions advanced. Considering the fact that the petitioner is running a hotel employing several workers and the alleged impecunious circumstances which is said to be plaguing the establishment, I am of the view that the petitioner can be permitted to clear the dues to the 1st respondent in installments.

5. In the result, this writ petition is disposed of on the following terms: i) The petitioner shall produce the certified copy of this judgment before the respondent within two weeks from today. ii) The respondent shall quantify the amounts due from the petitioner and inform the petitioner in writing, within a week therefrom, detailing the amount due along with interest as on 16.1.2020. iii) The respondent shall grant eight equal monthly installments and the first installment shall be payable on 3.2.2020. iv) The recovery proceedings shall be kept in abeyance if the petitioner continues to pay the amounts as ordered by this Court without any default. v) On the petitioner committing default of payment of any two installments, the respondent may recommence the recovery proceedings. vi) If any amount towards interest is due, the respondent shall inform the petitioner before the payment of the 8th installment is made and the petitioner will be bound to clear the same within a period of 30 days. It is made clear that the right, if any, of the respondent under Section 14 B and 7-Q of Act 1952 will not be in any manner affected by the directions issued above.

5. In this view of the matter, it is argued that respondent will permit to pay the remaining amount as stated above in Installment.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 & 3 very fairly concedes and states in view of the quantum of amount involved, the petitioner can be permitted to wipe off the entire arrears in eight equal monthly installments.

7. I have considered the submissions advanced. Considering the fact that the petitioner is Nagar Palika Parishad, I am of the view that the petitioner can be permitted to clear the dues to the respondent No.2 in installments.

8. In the result, this writ petition is disposed of on the following terms: i) The petitioner shall produce the certified copy of this judgment before the respondent Nos.2 & 3 within two weeks from today. ii) The respondent No.2 shall quantify the amounts due from the petitioner and inform the petitioner in writing, within a week therefrom, detailing the amount due along with interest as on 31.08.2025. iii) The respondent No.2 shall grant eight equal monthly installments and the first installment shall be payable on 01.09.2025. iv) The recovery proceedings shall be kept in abeyance if the petitioner continues to pay the amounts as ordered by this Court without any default. v) On the petitioner committing default of payment of any two installments, the respondent may recommence the recovery proceedings. vi) If any amount towards interest is due, the respondent No.2 shall inform the petitioner before the payment of the 8th installment is made and the petitioner will be bound to clear the same within a period of 30 days. It is made clear that the right, if any, of the respondent No.2 under Section 14 B and 7-Q of Act 1952 will not be in any manner affected by the directions issued above. Order Date :- 24.7.2025 saqlain SYED MOHAMMAD SAQLAIN HAIDER High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

learned counsel for respondent No.3.

2. The petitioner has preferred the present petition with the following prayers:- i. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari call for record and quash the impugned order dated 01.07.2025 passed by Chief Manager, State Bank of India, Maunath Bhanjan branch Sahadatpura, Mau (annexure No. 1 to this writ petition) ii. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to accept the outstanding amount i.e. 3,31,20,861/- in 12 monthly equal installments.

3. Facts in brief as contained in the writ petition are that the notice dated

18.03.2024 issued by the respondent No.2/Assistant/Regional Provident Fund Commissioner S.R.O. Varanasi under the provisions of Section 6, 6A and 6C read with Para 38 of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 by which a direction was given to the petitioner to make payment of Rs.3,88,10,884/-. Since the aforesaid order was not complied with, a letter dated

01.07.2025 was written by the respondent No.2/Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organization, Regional Office, Varanasi to the respondent No.3/Chief Manager, State Bank of India, Sahadatpura Maunath Bhajan Mau to submit a Bank Draft of aforesaid amount. Pursuant to the same, the aforesaid amount was deduced from the Bank Account of the petitioner on the very same day. Aggrieved with the order of recovery dated 01.07.2025 passed by the respondent No.2 and consequential order by the respondent No.3, the petitioner has preferred the present petition.

4. It is very fairly argued by learned Senior Counsel that insofar as the merits of the case, the petitioner is ready and willing to comply with the notice dated 18.03.2024 issued by the respondent No.2 but there is a shortage of funds with the petitioner, he will make payment the remaining amount in easy installments. Learned Senior Counsel also placed reliance upon the judgement and order dated 14.01.2020 passed by the Kerala High Court in Writ C No.786 of 2020 (W.) (M/S. J.J.Holidays Resorts Pvt. Ltd.,Munnar, Idukki, Represented By The Managing Director, Joseph Joseph, Manarkattu House, Palai Vs. Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Post Office Road, Thirunakkara, Kottayam-686001) which reads as follows:- The petitioner herein is a Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and is running a resort at Munnar in the State of Kerala. The establishment owned by the petitioner is covered under the provisions of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952.

2. According to the petitioner due to natural calamities including flood which beleaguered the State of Kerala in general and Munnar in particular their business went on a downward spiral and huge loss was sustained. The recession in the tourism industry did not help the cause of the petitioner either. The petitioner was therefore unable to make proper remittances of contributions with the respondent towards provident fund during the period from July 2016 to July 2018. According to the petitioner, a sum of Rs.9,69,097/- is due to the respondent and for realizing the same Exhibit P1 order has been issued under Section 8F(3)(i) of Act of 1952 directing the Branch Manager, ICICI Bank, Pala, where the petitioner is maintaining an account. The bank has been ordered to keep the account on hold and also to transfer the demanded amounts to the respondent. The petitioner contends that there was no wilful laches on their part and the non payment was not deliberate. It is in the above backdrop that the petitioner has approached this Court for a direction to the respondent to permit the petitioner to remit the amount demanded as per Exhibit P 1 in monthly installments.

3. Sri.Joy Thattil Ittoop, the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent, very fairly concedes and states in view of the quantum of amount involved, the petitioner can be permitted to wipe off the entire arrear in eight equal monthly installments.

4. I have considered the submissions advanced. Considering the fact that the petitioner is running a hotel employing several workers and the alleged impecunious circumstances which is said to be plaguing the establishment, I am of the view that the petitioner can be permitted to clear the dues to the 1st respondent in installments.

5. In the result, this writ petition is disposed of on the following terms: i) The petitioner shall produce the certified copy of this judgment before the respondent within two weeks from today. ii) The respondent shall quantify the amounts due from the petitioner and inform the petitioner in writing, within a week therefrom, detailing the amount due along with interest as on 16.1.2020. iii) The respondent shall grant eight equal monthly installments and the first installment shall be payable on 3.2.2020. iv) The recovery proceedings shall be kept in abeyance if the petitioner continues to pay the amounts as ordered by this Court without any default. v) On the petitioner committing default of payment of any two installments, the respondent may recommence the recovery proceedings. vi) If any amount towards interest is due, the respondent shall inform the petitioner before the payment of the 8th installment is made and the petitioner will be bound to clear the same within a period of 30 days. It is made clear that the right, if any, of the respondent under Section 14 B and 7-Q of Act 1952 will not be in any manner affected by the directions issued above.

5. In this view of the matter, it is argued that respondent will permit to pay the remaining amount as stated above in Installment.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 & 3 very fairly concedes and states in view of the quantum of amount involved, the petitioner can be permitted to wipe off the entire arrears in eight equal monthly installments.

7. I have considered the submissions advanced. Considering the fact that the petitioner is Nagar Palika Parishad, I am of the view that the petitioner can be permitted to clear the dues to the respondent No.2 in installments.

8. In the result, this writ petition is disposed of on the following terms: i) The petitioner shall produce the certified copy of this judgment before the respondent Nos.2 & 3 within two weeks from today. ii) The respondent No.2 shall quantify the amounts due from the petitioner and inform the petitioner in writing, within a week therefrom, detailing the amount due along with interest as on 31.08.2025. iii) The respondent No.2 shall grant eight equal monthly installments and the first installment shall be payable on 01.09.2025. iv) The recovery proceedings shall be kept in abeyance if the petitioner continues to pay the amounts as ordered by this Court without any default. v) On the petitioner committing default of payment of any two installments, the respondent may recommence the recovery proceedings. vi) If any amount towards interest is due, the respondent No.2 shall inform the petitioner before the payment of the 8th installment is made and the petitioner will be bound to clear the same within a period of 30 days. It is made clear that the right, if any, of the respondent No.2 under Section 14 B and 7-Q of Act 1952 will not be in any manner affected by the directions issued above. Order Date :- 24.7.2025 saqlain SYED MOHAMMAD SAQLAIN HAIDER High Court of Judicature at Allahabad