IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO : 11670 of 2008 Between: M/s. Maruthi Seeds Company, NH-16, Nizamabad Road, Armoor 503224, rep by its managing Partner, Sri N. Ramchander, S/o Veera Swamy aged about 50 years, Occ: Business, R/o Armoor, Nizamabad District. ..... PETITIONER AND Employees Provident Fund Organization, rep by its Assistant Provident fund- Commissioner and Recovery Officer, Sub Regional Office, Nyalkal Road, Nizamabad- 503 001. .....RESPONDENT 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 call for the records from the respondent and issue an approprivate Writ, order or Direction, particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring that the Notices of Demand issued by the respondent in proceedings No. AP/SRO/NZB/RECOVERY/34022/ PD. RRC No. 27/2008 dated 10-4-2008 and No. AP/SRO/NZB/RECOVERY/34022/ENF.RRC No. 38/2008 dated 10-4- 2008 and Notice to show cause why warrant of arrest should not be issued in proceedings No. AP/PF/RECOVERY/34022/2008 dated 23- 5-2008 as illegal, unjust, arbitrary, contrary to law, in violation of principles of natural justice and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and grant all consequential benefits, and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deems fit and proper under the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.A.K.JAYAPRAKASH RAO 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:- This writ petition is filed seeking a mandamus to declare the Proceedings No.AP/SRO/NZB/PD CELL/14-B/34022/07-08/429, dated 18.1.2008, two Notices of Demand No.AP/SRO/NZB/RECOVERY/ 34022/PD.PRC.No.27/2008 and No.AP/SRO/NZB/RECOVERY/ 34022/ENF.PRAC No.38/2008 dated 10.4.2008 and a consequential Notice dated 23.5.2008 issued by the respondent, as arbitrary and illegal. The petitioner-Maruthi Seeds Company, which was established in the year 1996, is a seasonal factory wherein the processing of seeds is being carried out and the season starts from February to June every year. During the season, number of employees would be ten and during non-season the number of employees would be six. The petitioner-firm is covered under the Employees Provident Fund Act and the contributions are paid by the petitioner from time to time. The petitioner further states that from the year 2000 onwards, on account of loss sustained in business, it could not pay the amounts payable towards contribution. However, the petitioner paid totaling Rs.3,38,206/- lakhs belatedly and submitted challans to the respondent. Now, the petitioner’s grievance is that though it paid the contributions to the respondent-Employees Provident Fund Organization by way of challans, the respondent, without giving any prior notice, issued the impugned Proceedings dated 18.1.2008 indicating that the petitioner failed to remit various contributions due from 03/2000 to 11/2005 in time; and Notices of Demand 10.4.2008 demanding him to pay a total of Rs.3,38,206/- lakhs and the consequential Notice dated 23.10.2008 calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why warrant of arrest should not be issued against it. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for Employees Provident Fund and perused the material placed on record. From a perusal of the Proceedings dated 18.1.2008, it is clear that admittedly, a Notice dated 13.8.2007 was issued by the respondent to the petitioner calling upon it to show cause as to why damages as envisaged under Section 14-B of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 cannot be recovered from it. The Proceedings further disclose the acknowledgement of receipt of the Notice dated 13.8.2007 by the petitioner, and also affording of sufficient opportunity to the petitioner of being heard i.e. on 28.8.2007, 20.9.2007, 23.10.2007, 13.11.2007, 29.11.2007, 18.12.2007 and 11.1.2008 to attend the enquiry. Though the petitioner acknowledged receipt of the Notice, it neither remitted any amount of contribution nor attended the enquiry, and hence, the respondent declared the petitioner as ex parte and issued the Proceedings dated 18.1.2008. This clearly reveals that the petitioner has not availed the opportunity in attending the enquiry, but the fact remains that it has some grievance to ventilate before the authority. Though the Proceedings dated 18.1.2008 cannot be said to be ex parte proceedings, but they were issued without the petitioner being heard. Hence, this Court feels that the petitioner may be given one more opportunity to put forth its version. Hence, this Court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition with the following directions: “The respondent is directed to fix 15.12.2008 as the date of hearing, on which day, the petitioner shall appear before the respondent-authority and make submissions. In case the petitioner fails to appear before the respondent on the stipulated day, the proceedings dated 18.1.2008 will automatically come into operation. 50% of the amount deposited by the petitioner in pursuance of the order dated 23.6.2008 passed by this Court, is subject to the result in the orders to be passed by the respondent.” In terms of the above directions, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. ______________ 28.11.2008 Note: Furnish copy in two days B/o bcj