C.MADANRAJ Vs. REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who purchased a property in an auction sale conducted by the Debts Recovery Tribunal - I, Chennai, has come up with the above three writ petitions, challenging (i) a sale proclamation issued by the Recovery Officer of the Employees Provident Fund Organisation, (ii) another sale proclamation issued by the Recovery Officer of the Employees Provident Fund Organisation, and (iii) a demand notice issued by the Tahsildar, Ambur for recovery of the dues payable to the workman.

(2.) Heard Mr.R.Shanmugam, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.P.Chinnadurai, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State, Mr.T.K.Ram Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the City Union Bank at whose instance the property was brought to sale by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Mr.N.G.R.Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the Trade Union of Employees and Mr.T.R.Sundaram, learned counsel appearing for the Employees Provident Fund Organisation.

(3.) There is no dispute about the fact that the City Union Bank, Kumbakonam, filed an application against a company by name Tejoomal Industries Limited for recovery of money and obtained a certificate of recovery in DRC No.231 of 2003 on the file of the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Chennai. Pursuant to the certificate of recovery, the Recovery Officer-I of Debts Recovery Tribunal-I conducted an auction of the immovable properties belonging to the debtor company on 15.6.2006. The petitioner participated in the auction and became the successful bidder. Thereafter, he also wrote to the Recovery Officer, a letter dated 30.6.2006, as to whether there are any statutory dues. The petitioner did not receive any response from the Recovery Officer.