IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 5099 of 2008 Between: M/s. Srinivas Mahal Cinema Theatre AP/11528, Rep. by its Managing Partner A. Venkata Koteswara Rao S/o.Ankaiah, aged 54 yrs, R/o.Mangalagiri, Guntur District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and Authorized Officer,A.P. Sub Regional Office, Guntur. 2 The Recovery Officer & Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II, Employees Provident Fund Organization, Regional Office, 3rd Lane, Krishna Nagar, Guntur. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue writ order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Certiorari, to call for the records relating to the impugned Proceedings No. AP/RO/GNT/Rec Cell/11528/2008 dt. 7-3- 2008 of the 2nd respondent and to quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and to grant such other relief or reliefs Counsel for the Petitioner: MRS.S.NANDA Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.R.N.REDDY (SC FOR EMPLOY'S PF ORG.) The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No. 5099 of 2008 ORDER: Heard Ms. S. Nanda, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri R.N. Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents-Provident Fund Organisation. The present writ petition is directed against an order passed by the Recovery Officer of the Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation, calling upon the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.1,60,111/-, within a period of seven days, failing which, warrant of arrest is liable to be issued. The only ground urged by the petitioner is that, it has not had a fair or reasonable opportunity of defending itself. It disputes the liability to pay such a huge sum of money. I am afraid that these contentions cannot be entertained at this stage, for, if the writ petitioner has any dispute with regard to the computation of the liability, it has to solicit the necessary data and details from the respondents-organisation, and it is for the petitioner to be satisfied about the accuracy of the records maintained by the respondents. There is nothing on record for me to suspect, that the records are not correctly, or properly maintained by the respondents, in discharging their functions. However, at the same time, it has to be realized that insisting for payment of entire liability, within a short span of seven days; might cause graver impact on the very purpose for which the exercise itself is carried out. By curtailing the liberty of the writ petitioner-employer, the lot of the employees, for whose benefit the entire action is sought to be taken; would not be served properly. For these reasons, I consider it appropriate to accord time for the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.80,000/- (Eighty thousand), on or before 15-05-2008. For the balance payment, the petitioner will appear before the respondents and verify the records maintained therein, and if the petitioner has got any genuine dispute to be raised, it will bring it out, by way of a representation, to the notice of the 2nd respondent, which will be examined by them. With this, the writ petition stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________________ NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J. Dt.11-03-2008. KO To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{VSMI}