Authority: High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru

Order Date: 31 July 2017

Case Overview

  • Petition: Writ Petition No.31907 of 2017 (L‑PF) filed by Sree Veerendra Heggade, Dharmadhikari of Shri Kshethra Dharmasthala, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, seeking quash of notice dated 08‑06‑2017 and communication dated 30‑06‑2017 issued by Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation.
  • Respondents: 1) Commissioner, Provident Fund Commission, Karnataka; 2) Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Regional Office, Mangaluru; 3) Assistant PF Commissioner (Coverage & Enrolment), Regional Office, Mangaluru; 4) Enforcement Officer, Employee PF Organisation, Mangaluru.
  • Background: On 25‑05‑2017 the petitioner received a request to register and obtain a PF Code for employees of the Shri Kshethra Dharmasthala temple. On 08‑06‑2017 the respondent informed the petitioner that, because the Central Government exemption was withdrawn, the temple was now covered under the Employees’ Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952.
  • Petitioner’s contentions: Cited Supreme Court judgment in Commissioner, R & CE, Mysore v. Rathnavarma Hegde (AIR 1977 SC 1848) stating the temple is not a “temple”, and asked the respondent to drop the proceedings.
  • Respondent’s counter‑arguments: The temple is registered with the Income Tax Department, has a PAN, and is listed as a temple in Gazette Notification dated 14‑05‑2010. The Supreme Court judgment does not apply to the PF Act. The exemption granted earlier was revoked by Notification dated 07‑09‑2015, making the Act applicable.
  • Procedural history: Respondents assigned a PF Code on 30‑06‑2017. The Court on 25‑07‑2017 directed the petitioner to produce the 07‑09‑2015 notification, which the petitioner failed to do. On the present hearing, the petitioner again refused to produce the 14‑05‑2010 notification, stating he would submit only if the Court specifically asked.
  • Court’s observations: The Court emphasized the litigant’s duty to disclose all material documents, even if adverse, and noted that the petitioner deliberately withheld the 07‑09‑2015 notification and has not produced the 14‑05‑2010 notification despite its availability. The Court characterized the petitioner’s conduct as “without clean hands” and “trying to take the Court out for a ride”.

Final Outcome

The writ petition is dismissed on the ground that the petitioner has intentionally withheld material documents and approached the Court without clean hands.

Topics: Employees Provident Fund, Temple Exemption, Judicial Procedure