Andhra Pradesh High Court
WP/15549/2026 of THANDAVA CO OP SUGAR LIMITED Vs THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER II on 17 June 2026
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH THURSDAY, TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: Between: 1. THANDAVA CO OP SUGAR LIMITED, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR I/C, PAYAKARAOPETA VILLAGE AND MANDAL, TUNI, ANAKAPALLI - 531 126, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT. 1. THE
APHC010294692026
IN TH
THURSDA
TWO
THE HONOURA
WR
Between:
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.
1. THANDAVA CO O DIRECTOR I/C, PA ANAKAPALLI - 531
1. THE REGIONAL EMPLOYEES PRO REGIONAL PROV OFFICE, MARRIP ANDHRA PRADESH
2. THE ASSISTANT P OFFICER, REGIO VISAKHAPATNAM,
3. THE DIRECTOR GOVERNMENT OF NO. 103, NEAR DISTRICT - 522 501 Petition under Articl circumstances stated in pleased to issue a Writ o direction, declaring the or E HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRAD AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) AY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JUN O THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT ABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMAL RIT PETITION NO: 15549/2026 OP SUGAR LIMITED, REP. BY IT AYAKARAOPETA VILLAGE AND MA 126, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT. AND PROVIDENT FUND COMMIS OVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION, VIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, PALEM VUDA LAYOUT,
VISA H - 530 009. PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONE ONAL OFFICE, MARRIPALEM VU ANDHRA PRADESH - 530 009. OF SUGAR AND CANE COMM F ANDHRA PRADESH, GARUDA EN R MANIPAL HOSPITAL, TADEPA
1. ...RES le 226 of the Constitution of India pra the affidavit filed therewith, the High of Mandamus, or any other appropriat rder of notice to show cause why a W DESH
NE LAPATI S MANAGING ANDAL, TUNI, ...PETITIONER SSIONER II, REP. BY ITS REGIONAL AKHAPATNAM, ER/RECOVERY UDA LAYOUT, MISSIONER, , NCLAVE, FLAT LLI, GUNTUR SPONDENT(S): aying that in the h Court may be te writ, order or Warrant of Arrest should not be issued dated 18.05.2026 bearing No.GRA/SP/1773/Recovery/Zone-55/2026/974 to pay the amount of Rs.76,79,957/- specified in Certificate No.GRVSPOOOl 773000/PD Cell/Zone- 55 (1) RRC/2023-24/196, dated 17.04.2024 has been forwarded by the Assessing Officers, Visakhapatnam to the Recovery Officer, Visakhapatnam without basis apart from arbitrary, high handed exercise of power and also violative of principles of natural justice and fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2026 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay of all further proceedings including the show cause of Arrest Warrant vide No.GRA/SP/1773/Recovery/Zone-55/2026/974, dated 18.05.2026 issued by the 2ND respondent pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. K VENUGOPAL REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR INDUSTRIES COMMERCE
2. The Court made the following order:
Aggrieved by the issuance of Notice dated 18.05.2026 issued by respondent No.2 to show cause why a warrant of arrest should not be issued for recovery of an amount of Rs.76,79,957/- specified in Certificate No. GRVSP0001773000/PDCell/Zone-55(1)/RRC/2023-24/196, dated 17.04.2024, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition.
2. Heard Sri K.Venu Gopal Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri T.Balaji, learned standing counsel for the Employees Provident Fund Organization appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri Rama Krishna, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Industries appearing for respondent No.3.
3. When the matter is taken up for consideration, the learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, seeks liberty for the petitioner to pay the amount of Rs.76,79,957/- within a period of six (6) months from today. Learned counsel for the respondents opposed for granting six months time, instead requested for four months.
4. As the petitioner has expressed willingness to pay the subject amount within a period of (6) months, this Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, is inclined to dispose of the Writ Petition at the stage of admission itself by passing the following order:
‘The petitioner is permitted to pay an amount of Rs.76,79,957/- (Rupees Seventy Six Lakhs Seventy Nine
Thousand Nine Hundred and Fifty Seven only) within a period of six (6) months from today. In the event of failure on the part of the petitioner to pay the aforesaid amount within the stipulated period, it is open to the respondents to proceed in accordance with law for recovery of the same. Till expiry of six (6) months period or till payment of the aforesaid amount, whichever is earlier, no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner by the respondents.
5. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. ____________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI
18.06.2026 MP
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI
WRIT PETITION NO.15549 OF 2026 18.06.2026
MP