What did the High Court hold?

The High Court directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's representations regarding the pending fees within four months. The respondents were also permitted to seek additional documents from the petitioner if required.

The petitioner, an advocate, was empanelled to conduct cases for the Employees Provident Fund Organization. He claims a balance amount of fees is due for cases conducted. Despite representations, the amount has not been paid.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the non-settlement of fees due to an empanelled advocate for services rendered to the Employees Provident Fund Organization. The court considered the delay in payment and the petitioner's representations.

Shri.M.B.Kanavi vs The Central Provident Fund… | Karnataka High Court 2019

Before: SHRI. M.B.KANAVI

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 16th DAY OF DECEMBER 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT PETITION No.111516 of 2019 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: SHRI. M.B.KANAVI AGE:51 YEARS OCC:ADVOCATE 55/11, 2ND CROSS RAJATAGIRI, DHARWAD 580004

.. PETITIONER (BY SRI. F.V. PATIL, ADV.)

AND:

THE CENTRAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION EPFO HEAD OFFICE, BHAVISHYA NIDHI BHAVAN NO.14, BHIKAJI CAMA PLACE, NEW DELHI 110066

THE ADDITIONAL CENTRAL PF COMMISSIONER KARNATAKA AND GOA EFPO OFFICE, BHAVISHYA NIDHI BHAVAN NEW BLOCK NO.10, BEHIND INCOME TAX OFFICE, NAVANAGAR, HUBBALLI 580025 TQ. HUBBALLI, DIST. DHARWAD

THE REGIONAL PF COMMISSIONER EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION BHAVISHYA NIDHI BHAVAN NEW BLOCK NO.10

2 BEHIND INCOEM TAX OFFICE, NAVANAGAR, HUBBALLI-580025 TQ. HUBBALLI, DIST. DHARWAD

.. RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. P.V. GUNJAL ADV. FOR RESPONDENTS)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 3 TO SETTLE THE FEES OF THE PETITIONER IN TERMS OF THE REPRESENTATIONS DATED 15.12.2016 AND 22.02.2019 VIDE ANNEXURES-D AND E AND TO PAY THE SAID AMOUNT.

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

In this writ petition, the petitioner has sought for the following relief: “a. Issue writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent nos.1 to 3 to settle the fees of the petitioner in terms of the representations dated 15.12.2016 and 22.02.2019 vide Annexures-D and E and to pay the said amount in the interest of justice and equity. b. Issue such other suitable order/s or directions as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the nature and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity.”

The case of the petitioner is that the respondent has approved the petitioner’s candidature for empanelment for conducting cases in High Court Circuit Bench at Dharwad and Gulbarga on behalf of Employees Provident Fund Organization for the block year 2012-14. Further, vide Annexure-A, A1, it has also indicted that for having conducted the said cases, he is entitled for fees prescribed by the Department of Legal Affairs, Minstry of Law and Justice, Government of India, from time to time. Thereafter, part amount has been paid by the respondent. Since balance amount is not paid, the petitioner has given a representation vide Annexures-D and E dated 15.12.2016 and 22.02.2019 respectively. Since the same is not considered, the petitioner is before this Court.

Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that if this Court grants some

4 reasonable time, the representations of the petitioner will be considered in accordance with law.

In view of the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the respondents are directed to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 15.12.2016 and 22.02.2019 vide Annexures-D and E, respectively, in accordance with law within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and if the respondents require any additional documents, they can call for such documents from the petitioner and thereafter shall consider the same within four months from the date of furnishing of such relevant records.

With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is disposed off.

Sd/- JUDGE Kmv

SHRI.M.B.KANAVI vs. THE CENTRAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER

What did the High Court hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments