IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO And THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT APPEAL NO.1268 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 24.03.2008 in W.P.NO.6185 OF 2008 on the ﬁle of the High Court.) Between: Andhra Cooperative Spinning Mills Ltd., Guntakal (Under Liquidation) S/o. Veeraiah, aged 52 yrs, Occ: Assistant Director of Handlooms & Textiles, Working at Anantapur (Post & District). ...APPELLANT AND 1 Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees' Provident Fund Organization, Sub-Regional Office, R.S. Road, Kadapa-516 004, A.P. 2 Recovery Officer, Employees' Provident Fund Organization Sub- Regional Office, R.S.Road, Kadapa-516 004, A.P. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant: MR.K.RAJANNA Counsel for the Respondents: MR.R.N.REDDY (SC FOR EMPLOY'S PF ORG.) The Court delivered the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO And THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT APPEAL NO.1268 of 2008 JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble Mr Justice B.Prakash Rao) Heard Sri K.Rajanna, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Sri R.N.Reddy, learned Standing Counsel and the learned Government Pleader for Industries and Commerce appearing on behalf of the respondents. At their request, the Writ Appeal itself is taken up for disposal at the admission stage. The appellant is the unsuccessful writ petitioner aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge at the admission stage on 24.03.2008 in W.P.No.6185 of 2008 permitting the petitioner to liquidate the entire liability, in accordance with law, on or before 31.07.2008, failing which the respondents were given liberty to give eﬀect to the notiﬁcation dated 07.03.2008 and proceed further for realization of the dues in terms of the impugned order. The grievance of the appellant is that having regard to the fact that permission has not yet been given by the Government-the third respondent, instead of ﬁling various applications commencing from 01.08.2007 and the last one on 11.01.2008, without which, the question of liquidating the liability or proceeding with the property does not arise, the time limit ﬁxed by the learned Single Judge necessarily needs to be extended subject to the permission granted by the Government. Having heard the counsel on either side and on perusal of the material available on record, we are of the view that since there is much controversy with the liability under the provisions of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, the only request made on behalf of the appellant is to the eﬀect that once the assets are liquidated, the entire liability can be discharged, which is again subject to the permission given by the Government. The applications are still pending consideration and the same have to be disposed of at the earliest by giving appropriate directions. There is no serious objection by the respondents’ counsel of this exercise. Having thus considered the submissions, we are of the view that it would suﬃce in the interest of justice to direct the third respondent to consider the applications ﬁled by the appellant herein commencing from 01.08.2007 to 11.01.2008 seeking for permission within a period of four {4} weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and pass orders in accordance with law. It is made clear that it is only thereafter, the appellant shall be given liberty to take steps to liquidate the entire liability in accordance with law and discharge the liability within a period of three {3} months from the date of grant of permission by the Government. We also make it clear that the dues towards provident fund necessarily have to be given preference as a ﬁrst charge over other liabilities. Subject to the above, the Writ Appeal is disposed of. No costs. _________________ (B.PRAKASH RAO, J) _________________ (G.CHANDRAIAH, J) 14th October 2008 Note: CC in one week B/O RRB