AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The present writ petition is taken up today through Video conferencing.
The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 13.03.2019 (Annexure-9 to the writ petition) passed in the matter of proceeding
under Section 7A read with Section 14B and 7Q of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 by the respondent no. 3 -
the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Regional Office, Jamshepur and order dated 09.01.2020 (Annexure-15 to the writ petition) passed by the
respondent no. 3, whereby the said authority has rejected the petition filed under Section 7B of the Act, 1952 on technical ground without deciding the
merit of the case for review of the order dated 13.03.2019 and also without giving any opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. Further prayer
has been made for quashing the warrant of attachment of movable property of the petitioner issued by the Employees Provident Fund Organisation
(EPFO) as contained in letter no. 124 dated 24.06.2019 (Annexure-10 to the writ petition) in pursuance of which the respondent no. 4 - State Bank of
India, Adityapur Branch has issued a bank draft in favour of EPFO without any consent/approval of the petitioner and the Bank has communicated
the fact of attachment and deduction of money vide letter dated 27.06.2019. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing the warrant of attachment of
movable property of the petitioner issued by the EPFO in pursuance of which the respondent no. 5 - Oriental Bank of Commerce, Adityapur Branch
has issued two bank drafts for a sum of Rs. 13,51,180/- in favour of the EPFO without any consent/approval of the petitioner and the same has been
communicated vide letter dated 20.01.2020 (Annexure-11 to the writ petition). The petitioner has further prayed that after quashing of Annexure-10
and Annexure-11, money deducted by the respondent- Banks may be diverted/deposited back to the account of the petitioner and the petitioner may
be compensated for illegal orders of the respondent nos. 1 to 3 and illegal action of the respondent-Banks i.e., the respondent nos. 4 and 5.
After some argument, Mr. Ranjan Prasad Sinha, the learned counsel for the petitioner, seeks permission to withdraw the present writ petition with
liberty to prefer an appeal under Section 7-I of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952.
Mr. Prashant Pallav, the learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 3 has no objection to the same.
Permission is accorded.
The writ petition is disposed of as withdrawn with aforesaid liberty.
I.A. No. 4311 of 2020 also stands disposed of.