THE REGINAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER-II vs. SHANKAR S/O. KRISHNAJI KULKARNI

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF AUGUST 2013 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE H.BILLAPPA W.P.No.72148/2012 C/W W.P.Nos.72147/2012, 65951/2012 & 68701-68708/2012 (S-R) IN WP NO 72148 OF 2012 BETWEEN THE REGINAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER-II REGIONAL OFFICE, 4TH FLOOR SHRINATH COMPLEX, NEW COTTON MARKET, HUBLI ..... PETITIONER (BY SRI M B KANAVI, ADVOCATE) AND SHANKAR S/O. KRISHNAJI KULKARNI AGE: 68 YEARS, R/O. MARTHANDA KRUPA #141, BASVESHWAR NAGAR, GOKUL ROAD, HUBLI ..... RESPONDENT (BY SRI S L MATTI, ADVOCATE)

2 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED:27/07/2012 PASSED IN COMPLAINT NO.51/2012 PASSED BY DISTRICT CONSUMER REDRESSAL FORUM, DHARWAD PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC. IN WP NO 72147 OF 2012 BETWEEN ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, BHAVISHYA NIDHI BHAVAN, NEW BLOCK, #10, BEHIND INCOME TAX OFFICE, NAVANAGAR, HUBLI ..... PETITIONER (BY SRI M B KANAVI, ADVOCATE) AND NARAYAN S/O. JATTI NAIK AGE: 72 YEARS, OCC: RETIRED EMPLOYEE, R/O. RAJIV NAGAR, SIRSI DIST: NORTH KANARA ..... RESPONDENT (BY SRI RAVINDRA R.NADGIR, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED:13/01/2012 PASSED IN COMPLAINT NO.361/2011 PASSED BY DISTRICT CONSUMER REDRESSAL FORUM, DHARWAD PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

3 IN W.P. Nos. 65951/2012 & 68701-68708/2012 BETWEEN ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, SHRINATH COMPLEX, NEW COTTON MARKET, HUBLI ..... PETITIONER (BY SRI M B KANAVI, ADVOCATE) AND 1. SOMALINGAPPA S/O BHIMAPPA HUDED AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: RETIRED, R/O. ASUNDI, TQ: SAVADATTI, DIST: BELGAUM 2. BASAVARAJ S/O SHANKREPPA SUNNAL AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: RETIRED TQ: NEAR POLICE STATION, KATKOL, TQ: RAMADURG, DIST: BELGAUM 3. VEERAPPA S/O. VEERABHADRAPPA KURABET AGE: 64 YEARS, OCC: RETIRED R/O. KATKOL, TQ: RAMADURG, DIST: BELGAUM 4. BHARAMAGOUDA S/O DEVENDRAPPA HIREGOUDAR AGE: 64 YEARS, OCC: RETIRED R/O. VIJAYANAGAR EXTN., DIST: HUBLI.

4 5. PRAKASH S/O BALU UPADHYA AGE: 64 YEARS, OCC: RETIRED R/O. H.NO. LIG 368, 12TH CROSS ROAD, NAVANAGAR, HUBLI 6. BASAVANNEPPA S/O. MALLAPPA RANGAPPANAVAR AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: RETIRED R/O. PCARD BANK, APMC YARD, DIST: GADAG 7. TIRAKAPPA S/O. YALLAPPA HADAPAD AGE: 66 YEARS, OCC: RETIRED R/O. 3RD MAIN, 5TH CROSS, SIDDALINGANAGAR GADAG, DIST: GADAG 8. NARAYAN S/O. GAJANAN UPADHYA AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: RETIRED R/O. NO. 21, GURUKRUPA, III MAIN MAHANTNAGAR, DHARWAD 9. RUDRAPPA S/O. BASAVANNEPPA HUCHANGOUDAR AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC: RETIRED R/O. DASTIKOPPA, TQ: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELGAUM ..... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI JAGADISH PATIL, ADVOCATE) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED:30/04/2012 PASSED IN COMPLAINT NO.23/2012 PASSED BY DISTRICT CONSUMER REDRESSAL FORUM, DHARWAD, PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

5 THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR HEARING- INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:- COMMON ORDER In these writ petitions under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has called in question, the orders dated 27.07.2012, 13.01.2012 and 30.04.2012 passed by the District Consumer Redressal Forum, Dharwad, in Complaint Nos.51/2012, 361/2011 and 23/2012 respectively, vide Annexure-A, in these writ petitions. 2. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that the writ petitions cannot be entertained in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in LAWS (SC)- 2012-8-66 in the case of Cicily Kallarackal Vs. Vehicle Factory. 3. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as follows: “3. WHILE declining to interfere in the present Special Leave Petition preferred against the order passed by the High Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the

6 Constitution of India, we hereby make it clear that the order of the Commission are incapable of being questioned under the writ jurisdiction of the High Court, as a statutory appeal in terms of Section 27A(1)(c) lies to this Court. Therefore, we have no hesitation in issuing a direction of caution that it will not be proper exercise of jurisdiction by the High Courts to entertain writ petitions against such orders of the Commission. A copy of this order may be sent to the Registrar General of all the High Courts, for bringing the same to the notice of Hon’ble the Chief Justices and Hon’ble Judges of the respective High Courts.” 4. It is clear, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has cautioned the High Courts not to entertain the writ petitions against the orders of the Commission. There is a statutory remedy by way of appeal. Therefore, the writ petitions cannot be entertained. 5. Accordingly, the writ petitions are dismissed. This will not come in the way of the petitioner pursuing the remedy available in law by raising appropriate grounds.

7 I.A.No.1/2013 does not survive for consideration and accordingly, it is rejected. SD/- JUDGE Naa