BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 09.09.2025 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI WP(MD)Nos.2262 and 2263 of 2020 and WMP(MD)Nos.1911 to 1914 of 2020 The Chairman Rathinavel Subramaniam Educational Trust, Dindigul (Doc.No.17/1983), RVS Nagar, Karur Road, Dindigul – 624 005. ...Petitioner Vs

1.The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Sub-Regional Office, Puducherry, Sri Venni Commercial Complex, No.101,100 Feet Road, Cholan Nagar, Olandai Keerapalayam, Puducherry – 605 004. 2.The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Sub-Regional Office, Madurai, No.1, Lady Doak College Road, Bhavishya Nidhi Bhavan, Chokkikulam, Madurai – 625 002

3.The Manager, Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank Limited, No.9, Salai Road, Dindigul Road.

4.M/s.Rathinavel Subramaniam Educational Trust, (Pondicherry) (Doc.No.79/1999), Rep by its Chairman, Kalikuppam, Thiruvettakudi, Kottucherry Committee, Kottucherry Commune, Karaikal – 609 609, Pudhucherry. ...Respondents [R4 was impleaded vide order dated 09.03.2020 in WMP(MD)Nos.2285 and

2282 of 2020]

PRAYER: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of relating to the impugned order issued by the 1^st respondent in Ref.No.TBM/SRO-PDY/PC/1789/DIV IV/ Comp/2019/1 and 2 dated 19.11.2019, quash the same and further direct the 1^st respondent to repay to the petitioner forthwith the sum of Rs.6,55,000/- unauthorisedly withdrawn by him from the petitioner's current Account No.

006150050324097 in the 3^rd respondent bank with interest thereon.

For Petitioner : Mr.I.G.Ivyn for M/s.Isaac chambers For Respondent : Mr.K.Jeyamohan, Nos.1& 2 For Respondent : Mr.N.Dilip Kumar, No. 3

ORDER

The petitioner an educational trust has filed these writ petitions as against the orders passed by the 1^st respondent Regional Provident Fund Commissioner under Section 8 F of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provident Funds Act [herein after shall be referred to as 'the Act'] calling upon this petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.4,26,519/- and Rs.33,98,128/- due for the employees provident fund contribution by the

4^th respondent.

2.The 4^th respondent an educational trust runs a college at Karaikal.

An enquiry under Section 7A of the Act was conducted in the 4^th respondent organisation and orders were passed under Section 7A of the Act as against the 4^th respondent on 30.09.2019. The 4^th respondent has not challenged the orders and has also not paid the contribution. Therefore, the 2^nd respondent initiated proceedings under Section 8F of the Act, as against the petitioner organisation, which according to the them is also an unit of the 4^th respondent and therefore, it can be recovered from the petitioner's organisation as per the provisions under Section 2A of the Act. The orders passed under Section 8F of the Act are challenged in these writ petitions.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner organisation is in no way connected with the provident fund contribution to be paid by the 4^th respondent. The 4^th respondent is a separate entity and the petitioner organisation is a separate entity. However, the learned counsel admits that two of the trustees of the 4^th respondent organisation are also functioning as trustees in the petitioner's organisation. However, the authorities have passed an order for attachment of the bank account for the dues of Rs.4,26,519/- and Rs.33,98,128/-. The learned counsel submits that before attachment of the bank account, the respondent authority has not issued any notice even as per Section 8 (3)(ii) of the Act. In the event if they are treating the petitioner organisation as the unit of the 4^th respondent, they ought to have issued notice as required under Sub Section (3) (ii) of Section 8F of the Act. However, without issuing any notice, they have attached their bank account and have also take