AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Murali Purushothaman, J
The petitioner is an establishment engaged in plantation business. Due to default in payment of contribution under the EPF & MP Act, 1952, the respondents attached the entire extent of 4215 acres of tea plantation of the petitioner at Peermade. According to the petitioner, if his property is properly valued, it would fetch an amount of Rs.250 crores. If the extent of 600 acres of Glenmary estate is valued, that alone would fetch Rs.29 crores as per fair value, which would be more than sufficient to wipe out the entire liability to the tune of Rs.6.5crores as per Ext.P3. The petitioner filed Ext.P8 representation before the 1st respondent, requesting him to restrict the recovery process to Glenmary estate alone, which has a market value of 10 crores, which is sufficient to recover the entire liability.
The petitioner has also approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.24003/2020 for a direction to the 1st respondent to consider Ext.P8 request and to release the rest of the property from attachment. This Court by judgment dated 07.12.2020 directed the 1st respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P8 within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Pursuant to Ext.P9 judgment, the 1st respondent passed Ext.P10 order, wherein, the 1st respondent has stated that only after obtaining a valuation report of the property, further action, such as auction/withdrawal of the property can be made. It is further stated that the matter has been referred to the valuer as per communication referred to therein. As per Ext.P10, a valuation report is awaited.
I have heard Sri.V.B.Harinarayan, the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Joy Thattil Ittoop, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
On going through Ext.P10, I am of the opinion that the 1st respondent/competent officer ought to have disposed of Ext.P8 representation, only after calling for valuation report and after considering the same. Ext.P10 is a non-speaking order. The request of the petitioner is not considered with due application of mind. I set aside Ext.P10 and direct the 1st respondent/competent officer to pass fresh orders on Ext.P8, after obtaining the valuation report and after hearing the petitioner. The request of the petitioner for release of the property as requested in Ext.P8 shall be considered in the light of the valuation report and in accordance with law, which shall be done within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. I make it clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of Ext.P8 representation.
The writ petition is disposed of.