IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 3271 of 2009 Between: Ashok Industries, rep by its Managing Partner Residing at 7-1-41/2, Kirlampudi Layout, Visakhapatnam-530003 ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Provident Commissioner officer employees Provident Fund Organization, Sub regional Office NAD Post VUDA Layout, Marripalem, Visakhapatnam-530009 2 The Recovery Officer, Employees Provident Fund Organization, Sub Regional Officer NAD Post Visakhapatnam-530009 .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue an appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declare the action of the Respondents in taking the coercive steps in pursuance of recovery proceedings issued in Order No.AP/VSP/Circle 53/Damages/AP/20315/CA/2721 dated 7.10.2004 as illegal, arbitrary,and without jurisdiction and issue a consequential direction to the Respondents to release the car bearing No.AP 31S 1889 belonging to the petitioner and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.D.V.SITARAMAMURTHY Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR. R.N. REDDY (SC FOR EMPLOY'S PF ORG.) The Court made the following : O R D E R:- The petitioner-organization was engaged in the business of repairs to ocean going cargo ships in Visakhapatnma Port Trust. Owing to some accumulated losses, the petitioner-organization was closed down in the year 2000 and because of its closure, the services of all the employees were terminated and their wages with all terminal benefits were settled after negotiating with C.I.T.U. Employees Trade Union. Now, the petitioner’s grievance is that the 1st respondent issued a Prohibitory Order dated 07.10.2004 demanding the petitioner to remit an amount of Rs.1,29,377/- towards statutory contribution in respect of provident fund and interest levied under Sections 7Q and 14-B of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short “the Act”) and that the 2nd respondent, on 03.03.2008, seized the Santro Car bearing No.AP31S 1889 belonging to the petitioner. The learned Standing Counsel for Provident Fund submitted that the petitioner has an alternative effective remedy under Section 7(I) of the Act, and without exhausting the remedy of appeal, he has filed this writ petition. In view of the submission made by the learned Standing Counsel that the petitioner has an effective alternative remedy under the provisions of the Act, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with the following directions: “The petitioner is at liberty to avail the alternative effective remedy of appeal available to him against the impugned order dated 07.10.2004 passed by the 1st respondent before the Appellate Tribunal under Section 7(I) of the Act, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, along with an application for stay of the impugned order. On the appeal along with the application for stay being filed, the Appellate Tribunal shall entertain the appeal and pass appropriate orders on the stay application. Till such time, the respondents are directed not to take any coercive steps against the petitioner for recovery of the amount of Rs.1,29,377/-. ” Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. ______________ N.V.RAMANA, J 19th February, 2009 bcj