IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 15TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G. PANDIT WRIT APPEAL NO. 3527 OF 2014 (L-PF) BETWEEN:
1. CENTRAL BOARD OF TRUSTEES EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION REPRESENTED BY REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, S.R.O. RATHNAGIRI ROAD CHIKKAMAGALUR - 577 101.
2. THE ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION S.R.O. RATHNAGIRI ROAD CHIKKAMAGALUR - 577 101.
(BY SRI. G.M. ANANDA, ADVOCATE) AND:
... APPELLANTS M/S. KELAGUR COFFEE AND TEA ESTATES JAVALI (V) AND POST MUDIGERE TALUK, CHIKMAGALUR - 577 122 (REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER AND AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY) ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI C.K. NANDA KUMAR, ADVOCATE) THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WEIT PETITION NO.14616 OF 2014 DATED 21.10.2014.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the order dated 21.10.2014 passed in Writ Petition No.14616 of 2014 by the learned Single Judge in rejecting the writ petition filed by the petitioner - appellant No.2 herein, the appellants have filed this appeal.
2. By the impugned order, the leaned Single Judge rejected the petition filed by the petitioner - appellant No.2 on the ground of locus standi by following the judgment in the case of ‘The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation vs. M/s. Indus Fila Limited & Another’ reported in ILR 2014 KAR 2118. Appellant No.1 is not a party before the learned Single Judge.
3. The plea of the appellants is that they are entitled to challenge the impugned order of the learned Single Judge, which would come in the way of the appellants. We fail to understand as to how such a submission can be made when the writ petition was dismissed on the ground of locus standi.
4. The question of filing the writ appeal questioning the order of the learned single Judge is absolutely misconceived. They are always at liberty to challenge the impugned order in the writ petition in a manner known to law. Hence, we do not find any ground to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge. Appeal is dismissed.
Pending application stands rejected.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE SA