Telangana High Court
WP/8811/2004 of M/s. Sunita Textiles Mills (P) Ltd., Vs The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, on 30 December 2004
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 8811 of 2004 Between: M/s. Sunita Textiles Mills (P) Ltd., 21-6-646, Rikabgunj, Hyderabad.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND FOUR
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI
WRIT PETITION NO : 8811 of 2004
Between:
M/s. Sunita Textiles Mills (P) Ltd., 21-6-646, Rikabgunj, Hyderabad. Rep. by its Managing Director, Sri. Rajaram Wadhwa.
..... PETITIONER
AND
1 The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Employment Provident Fund, Barkathpura, Hyderabad.
2 The Enforcement Officer, Employees' Provident Fund Office, Barkatpura, Hyderabad, A.P.
.....RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in thecircumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased toissue an order, direction or writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ ofMandamus declaring the action of the respondents in initiating recovery proceedingsby computing the amount in pursuance of the order Dated 17.2.2004 as illegal,arbitrary and unjust and consequently direct the respondents not to initiate anyaction till the disposal of the Appeal before the Appellate Tribunal.
Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.G.RAVI MOHAN
Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 & 2: MR.R.N.REDDY, SC for EmployeesProvident Fund.
The Court made the following :
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri R.N. Reddy, the learnedstanding counsel for the respondents.
Admittedly, appeal filed by the petitioner against the order passed under section 7-Aof the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 dated 17-02-2004 is pending before the Appellate Tribunal. It is represented by the learnedcounsel for both the parties that the Appellate Tribunal is now functioning. In thecircumstances, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition leaving it open tothe Appellate Authority to consider the appeal preferred by the petitioner and passappropriate orders in accordance with law. However, the interim order granted bythis Court on 05-05-2004 not to initiate any action or insist for production of therecords shall continue for a period of eight weeks from today.
Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.
___________
To
1 The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Employment Provident Fund, Barkathpura, Hyderabad.
2 The Enforcement Officer, Employees' Provident Fund Office, Barkatpura, Hyderabad, A.P.
3 Two C.D. copies.
sj