HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZUL PURKAR WRIT PETITION No.34558 of 2011 Dt:- 29.12.2011 Between:- Toddy Tapper Co-operative Society, Rep. by its President G.Vittal Goud. … Petitioner and Employees Provident Fund Organization, rep. by its Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and antoher … Respondents This Court made the following:- HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZUL PURKAR WRIT PETITION No.34558 of 2011 ORDER: - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. The writ petition is filed questioning the notice issued by the respondents, dated 15.07.2011, to show cause why arrest warrant should not be issued against the petitioner as well as further notice, dated 04.11.2011, fixing the enquiry under Section 7-A of the Employees’ Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short, “the Act”) to 14.11.2011, by raising a specific contention that under Section 16 of the Act, the petitioner, being a Co-operative Society, is not covered by the said Act and that entire proceedings initiated under Section 7-A of the Act is without jurisdiction. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents, points out that the petitioner’s Society has already been allotted code No.AP/47156, which prima facie supports the coverage, and now that enquiry under Section 7-A of the Act is pending, petitioner’s Society is required to participate and raise their contentions, which they want to raise. It is apparent that petitioner was allotted a code number some time in the past, which prima facie shows the coverage of the petitioner. However, on the date of enquiry on the notice whether petitioner is covered under the Act by virtue of Section 16 of the Act or otherwise, is a matter which requires adjudication by the authority conducting enquiry under Section 7-A of the Act. The petitioner is, therefore, at liberty to raise all their contentions including the aspect of coverage before the authority, which is conducting Section 7-A enquiry, and seek adjudication on the aspects raised by them. The 2nd respondent, who is seized of the said enquiry, shall deal with all such objections raised by the petitioner and pass appropriate reasoned order in accordance with law. To the extent of holding of Section 7-A enquiry, therefore, infirmity at this stage is not discernible. However, to the extent of the show cause notice for arrest is concerned, I find it wholly unnecessary for the 2nd respondent to issue such a notice to the petitioner. The said notice, therefore, shall not be given effect to, pending adjudication of the matter. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, states that the petitioner shall co-operate with the proposed enquiry; shall not seek unnecessary adjournments; and ensure expeditious disposal of the said enquiry. The Writ Petition is, therefore, disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to permit the petitioner to raise all contentions they intend to raise and adjudicate upon the matter under Section 7-A of the Act in accordance with law expeditiously. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J 29.12.2011 Note: Issue C.C. in three days. {B/o} lmv HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZUL PURKAR WRIT PETITION No.34559 of 2011 29.12.2011 lmv