THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 7946 OF 2010 Dated 9th April, 2010 Between: Maridian Educational Society …Petitioner And The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner And two others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Miss.Naga Niyata Counsel for respondent No.1: Mr.R.N.Reddy S.C for Employees’ Provident Fund The Court made the following ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside prohibitory order dated 05.04.2010 passed by respondent No.1. I have heard Ms. Naga Niyata, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri R.N.Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.1. The petitioner was allegedly in arrears of payment of provident fund for the period from April, 2009 to September, 2009. Proceedings under Section 7-A of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short “the Act”) were initiated by respondent No.1. A n ex parte order was passed adjudicating the petitioner’s liability at Rs.22,02,596/- on 13.01.2010. The said order is stated to have been communicated to the petitioner on 23.03.2010. Respondent No.1 issued a prohibitory order on 05.04.2010 against respondents 2 and 3 requiring them to pay Rs.6,05,112/- towards the provident fund dues determined under order dated 13.01.2010. According to the petitioner before order dated 13.01.2010 was passed, it has paid a sum of Rs.15,52,485/-, which was stated to be the admitted due amount. The grievance of the petitioner is that it was not left with sufficient time to file an application for setting aside the ex parte order as the order of determination was served on it only on 23.03.2010, while prohibitory order was passed on 05.04.2010. The learned counsel for the petitioner made her forceful submissions. According to her, no prior notice has been given before passing the prohibitory order and that the petitioner is not liable to pay the said sum. Opposing the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri R.N.Reddy, learned Standing Counsel, submitted that in pursuance of order of determination dated 13.01.2010, the impugned prohibitory order was made as the petitioner failed to pay the amount. He further submitted that in pursuance of the prohibitory order, respondent No.2 has paid the sum of Rs.6,05,112/- from the petitioner’s account and therefore, the prohibitory order worked itself out. The fact that payment was made from the petitioner’s account in pursuance of the prohibitory order is admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In view of this fact, the cause in the writ petition does not survive for consideration. However, the petitioner is permitted to avail its remedy under Section 7-A (iv) of the Act or file an appeal under Section 7-I of the Act. In the event of the petitioner’s success in either of the proceedings, respondent No.1 shall refund the amount to the petitioner Subject to the above, the writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of main petition, WPMP No.10214 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 9th April, 2010 vrn