IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 778 of 2009 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 24/03/2009 in WP NO : 6032 OF 2009 on the file of the High Court.) Between: Smt.Brunda Devi @ Brunda Prasad W/o.C.S.Prasad Tirupathi, R/o.D.No.232, Brundavan Road, Salivahana Nagar Tirupathi Town, Chittoor District ..... APPELLANT AND 1 V.Madan Mohan S/o.Late Munaswamy Naidu Sri Vidyodaya Educational Society, R/o.D.No.232, Brundavan Road,Salivahana Nagar, Tirupati, Chittoor District 2 The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, EPF Organization, Bhavishya Nidhi Bhavan, Barkatpura, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant: MR.S.LAKSHMINARAYANA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : Mr.KOTI REDDY IDAMAKANTI Counsel for the Respondent No.2: MR.R.N.REDDY (SC FOR EMPLOY'S PF ORG.) The Division Bench of this Court made the following : Judgment follows 2nd page THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 778 of 2009 J U D G M E N T : (Per the Hon’ble Smt.Justice T.Meena Kumari) The writ appeal is filed against order dated 24-3-2009 passed in WP.No. 6032 of 2009 by the learned single Judge, whereby the learned single Judge while disposing of the main writ petition directed the appellant-writ petitioner to make a detailed representation before the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Sub-Regional Officer, Kadapa, within a period of two weeks from the date of order and on filing such a representation, the said authority shall dispose of the same as per law, within a period of six weeks thereafter. 2. The main writ petition was filed seeking mandamus to declare the inaction of the Respondent No.1 in not passing any order on the representation dated 17-2-2009 complaining against Respondent No.2 and to pass such other suitable orders. 3. Sri S. Lakshmi Narayana Reddy, the learned counsel for the appellant-Respondent No.2 in the writ petition contended that the writ petition itself is not maintainable on the ground that the first respondent herein has no locus standi to file the writ petition before this court seeking mandamus to dispose of his alleged representation before the second respondent herein against the appellant as admittedly the first respondent is neither Secretary nor Correspondent of Sri Vidyodaya Society as alleged by him in his affidavit and in the cause title in the writ petition, as the first respondent was informed by the District Registrar of Assurances through his Proceedings dated 21-5-2004 whereunder it is informed to the first respondent-writ petitioner that he is not found either in members of the body of Sri Vidyodaya Society or in any official capacity and hence his representation cannot be considered on the ground that the first respondent on earlier occasion had filed WP.No.6280 of 2004 before this court for disposal of his alleged claim of representation, claiming to be a Secretary of the Society and as such, the first respondent has suppressed the same before this court and obtained an ex-parte order against the appellant in WP.6032 of 2009. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant-Respondent No.2 in the writ petition further submitted that whether the learned single Judge was justified in disposing of WP.No.6032 of 2009 without giving notice to the appellant though the first respondent-writ petitioner had made allegation against the appellant by suppressing the fact of filing OS.No.13 of 2003 on the file of the Court of V-Additional District Judge, Tirupati, against the appellant seeking to declare him as Secretary of the society and also filing of false complaint to the Police by describing himself as Secretary of the Society, more so when the District Registrar, Chittoor has categorically informed him that he was not found him neither member of the society nor in any official capacity through its proceedings dated 21-5-2004. 5. In pursuance of the representation made, the learned counsel for the appellant has argued that final notice has been issued by the Enforcement Officer, Tirupati, directing the appellant to produce records within one week after receiving the notice, failing which prosecution under section 14 of EPF and MP Act, 1952 read with para 76 of the EPF Scheme, 1952 will be launched for violating the same apart from taking ex-part decision as regarding the coverage of her establishment. The learned counsel further argued that the appellant is a old lady and she requires some time to submit the written statement to the said notice dated 28-5-2009 and some time may be granted to the appellant. 6. Having heard the learned counsel on either side, under the above circumstances, we deem it appropriate to extend three weeks of time from the date of receipt of a copy of this order to the appellant to file her written statement to the final notice in Letter No. AP/Insp./TPT/Coverage/ 2009/AP/25879, dated 28-5-2009 issued by the Enforcement Officer, District Provident Fund Office, (Employees’ Provident Fund Organization), Tirupati. It is also made clear that the second respondent shall not pass final orders on the representation unless an opportunity of hearing is afforded to both the parties and final order should be passed thereafter within eight weeks from the date of filing of written statement. At this stage, the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that copy of the representation has not been furnished to the appellant and liberty may be given to the appellant for making application for supply of copy of representation. Considering the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant, liberty is granted to the appellant for making application for supply of copy of representation. However, it is further made clear that as and when such application is made by the appellant, the second respondent is directed to furnish the same to the appellant under acknowledgement. 7. With the above direction, the writ appeal is disposed of at the stage of admission. No costs. _________________________ JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI ____________________ JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR 04-6-2009. I s L NB: Furnish CC in two days. B/o. I s L