THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.13371 of 2005 ORDER: This writ petition is filed questioning the show cause notice dated 10.06.2005 issued by the 1st respondent. Under the impugned show cause notice dated 10.06.2005, the petitioner was asked to show cause as to why he should not be committed to the civil prison for his failure to pay the amount of arrears specified in Certificate No. PDRCK 278/2004 and RCK 59/2001 dated 16.04.2001 and 4/2004, whereunder he was asked to remit an amount of Rs.2,51,267/- (Rs.78,115/- + Rs.1,73,152/-) towards the arrears of EPF Contribution of both Sri Padmalaya Poly Sacks Private Limited as well as Sri Sai Ram Poly Sacks Private Limited for the period from September, 1997 to March, 1999 and from April, 1999 to August, 2000 respectively. According to the petitioner, prior to issuance of the impugned show cause notice, the 1st respondent addressed a notice of demand dated 22.01.2001 to M/s. Sri Sai Ram Poly Sacks Private Limited, Vijayawada, which was signed and served by the 1st respondent on 19.04.2005, demanding an amount of Rs.1,73,152/-, towards the arrears of EPF Contribution for the period from April, 1999 to August, 2000 and the administrative charges, within 15 days. It is the case of the petitioner that during April, 1999 to August, 2000, the period for which EPF contribution was claimed under notice dated 22.01.2001, he was acting as an Additional Director of the said M/s. Sri Sai Ram Poly Sacks Private Limited, since two Directors of their Company went to United States to pursue higher studies. In this regard, the petitioner also contends that though the resolution was passed on 26.06.1999, his duties as Managing Director actually came into effect from 10.02.2000 and that he was not empowered to take decisions with regard to the financial matters of the Company as per the said resolution, which fact was intimated to E.P.F. Department vide Form V- A dated 28.09.2000. It is the case of the petitioner that the 1st respondent issued another notice dated 20.07.2004 to M/s. Sri Padmalaya Poly Sacks Private Limited, Nuzvid, to which he is no way concerned, demanding an amount of Rs.78,115/- towards EPF dues for the period from September, 1997 to March, 1999, and the said notice was served on him by force on 02.06.2005. With regard to this, the petitioner asserts that as M/s. Sri Padmalaya Poly Sacks Private Limited has become a sick unit, it was seized and sold in auction, wherein his son and three others purchased it and running it under the name and style of M/s. Sri Sai Ram Poly Sacks Private Limited, however, he was inducted as Additional Managing Director for a limited period, through resolution dated 26.06.1999. The grievance of the petitioner is that he is not at all concerned with the affairs of the said M/s. Sri Padmalaya Poly Sacks Private Limited, which is not in existence as of now, and that neither himself nor M/s. Sri Sairam Poly Scaks Private Limited is responsible to pay the EPF arrears for the period from September, 1997 to March, 1999, demanded by the 1st respondent under notice dated 20.07.2004. Hence, this writ petition. In the counter affidavit filed by the 1st respondent, it is stated that since none appeared on behalf of the establishment on 04.10.2000, for determination of E.P.F. dues, basing on the material available on record, the assessment order dated 20.11.2000 was passed assessing an amount of Rs.1,73,152/- as arrears for the period from 4/1992 to 8/2000, against which the petitioner did not prefer any appeal and therefore it became final. It is also stated that the petitioner is none other than the father of the original Managing Director of the establishment and that the alleged resolution clearly discloses that the petitioner must have taken the position of Managing Director prior to the Board Resolution dated 26.06.1999. It is also stated that under the guise of the alleged resolution which was passed for the administrative convenience, the petitioner cannot escape from the statutory liability for the omissions and commissions committed by the Finance Director of the Company Board and if there is any such omission or commission committed by the Finance Director, the Board can indemnify the concerned and it is purely internal affair of the Board. It is further stated that since M/s. Padmalaya Poly Sacks Private Limited was purchased by the management of M/s. Sri Sai Ram Poly Sacks Private Limited in an auction, issuance of demand notice dated 20.07.2004, for recovery of the arrears of Rs.78,115/- of M/s. Padmalaya Poly Sacks Private Limited for the period from 9/1997 to 3/1999, which was served on the petitioner, is valid in the light of Sec. 17-B of the E.P.F. Act, 1952. It is also stated that as per Section 8-B (1) of the E.P.F. Act, which deals with modes of recovery, the impugned show cause notice dated 10.06.2005 does not suffer from any legal infirmity. Heard the learned counsel on either side. According to the petitioner, during April, 1999 to August, 2000, for the period for which the 1st respondent claimed EPF dues under notice of demand dated 22.01.2001 addressed to M/s. Sri Sai Ram Poly Sack Private Limited, he was acting as an Additional Director of the said company, on his being nominated as such under resolution dated 26.06.1999, only for a limited period. As per the resolution passed on 26.06.1999, though it appears that the petitioner was appointed as Additional Director prior to passing of the Resolution dated 26.06.1999, the petitioner was not empowered to take any decisions with regard to the financial matters of the company. At any rate, the petitioner strongly contends that so far as EPF dues pertaining to Sri Sai Ram Poly Sacks Private Limited is concerned, he is not at all liable to pay the said dues, as he was not empowered to deal with the issues relating to labour dues, PF, ESI Central Excise and APSEB dues either past or present, which have to be dealt with by the Finance Director alone, and so far as the dues pertaining to Sri Padmalaya Poly Sacks Private Limited is concerned, he is not at all concerned with the affairs of the said Firm. In view of the above, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing the respondents to issue notice to the petitioner and all the concerned persons, and, after considering the explanation that may be submitted by them, fix up the responsibility as per law, for payment of subject dues. This exercise shall be completed within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till such time, status quo as on today shall be maintained. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. _____________ C.V.RAMULU,J 27.01.2011 v v