2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 14031
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. SURENDER
M/s. K.K.P. Construction – Appellant
Versus
The Regional Provident Fund – Respondent
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED :18.02.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDER W.P.(MD)No.4124 and 4354 of 2026 and WMP (MD) Nos.3626, 3435 & 3436 of 2026 W.P.(MD) No.4124 of 2026 M/s.K.K.P.Construction Through its Partner Muneeswaran ... Petitioner(s)
Vs.
1. The Regional Provident Fund, Commissioner - II and Recovery Officer, Employees Provident Fund Organization, Regional Office, Bhavishya Nidhi Bhavan, Chokkikulam, Madurai - 6. 2. The Enforcement Officer, Employees Provident Fund Organization, Regional Office, Bhavishya Nidhi Bhavan, Chokkikulam, Madurai - 625 002.
3. The Executive Engineer,, TWAD Board, Planning and Maintenance Division, Madurai.
4. The Branch Manager, Bank of India, Anna Nagar Branch, Plot No.3 Ground Floor, Vaigai Colony, Anna Nagar, Madurai. ... Respondent(s) PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned Prohibitory order dated 31.12.2025 in No.TN/RO/MD/MDU//Recy/1590462/M-40/2025 issued by the 1st Respondent and quash the same on the ground of violation of the Principles of Natural Justice and the Constitutional right of the petitioner relating to the Trade and Business and consequently directing the 1st Respondent to recover the entire claim in terms of 14(B) and 7(Q) of the Provident Fund Act from the 3rd Respondent.
W.P.(MD) No.4354 of 2026 M/s.K.K.P.Construction Through its Partner Muneeswaran ... Petitioner(s)
Vs.
1. The Regional Provident Fund, Commissioner - II and Recovery Officer, Employees Provident Fund Organization, Regional Office, Bhavishya Nidhi Bhavan, Chokkikulam, Madurai - 6.
2. The Enforcement Officer, Employees Provident Fund Organization, Regional Office, Bhavishya Nidhi Bhavan, Chokkikulam, Madurai - 625 002.
3. The Executive Engineer,, TWAD Board, Planning and Maintenance Division, Madurai.
4. The Branch Manager, Axis Bank, Melur Branch, No.418, Trichy Main Road, Melur, Madurai - 625 016. ... Respondent(s) PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus,to call for the records relating to the impugned Prohibitory order dated 31.12.2025 in No.TN/RO/MD/MDU/Recy/1590462/M-40/2025 issued by the 1st Respondent and quash the same on the ground of violation of the Principles of Natural Justice and the Constitutional right of the Petitioner relating to the Trade and Business and consequently directing the 1st Respondent to recover the entire claim in terms of 14(B) and 7(Q) of the Provident Fund Act from the 3rd Respondent.
For Petitioner :Mr. R.Aravindan (in both WPs)
For Respondents :Mr.T.Aswin Rajasimman Standing Counsel for R1 and R2 M/s.B.Vijay Karthikeyan Standing Counsel for TWAD Board for R3 (in both writ petitions)
O R D E R
These writ petitions have been filed challenging the prohibitory order dated 31.12.2025 issued by the first respondent and consequently to direct the first respondent to recover the entire claim in terms of 14(B)
and 7(Q) of the Provident Fund Act from the third respondent.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that he has to receive a sum of nearly Rs.23 lakhs from the third respondent/TWAD Board. However, in view of the prohibitory order passed by the first respondent, the accounts maintained by the petitioner in the two bank accounts, one with Axis Bank and the other with Bank of India, have been frozen. Once the third respondent/TWAD Board deposits the said amount into the petitioner’s bank accounts, the same shall be received by the bank and after retaining the outstanding arrears amount of Rs.7,24,385/- payable to the first respondent, the remaining amount shall be made available to the petitioner.
4. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 submitted that the petitioner has failed to pay the arrears due, amounti