THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Writ Petition No.21673 of 2005 Dated:04th August, 2010 Between: 1. APSRTC rep. by its Vice Chairman & Managing Director, Mushirabad, Hyderabad & Anr. ….Petitioners and 1. The Asst. Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation, Sub-Divisional Office, Nyalkal Road, Nizamabad & Anr. …Respondents **** THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Writ Petition No.21673 of 2005 ORDER: This Writ Petition has been filed by APSRTC with a prayer to issue a writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the Prohibitory Order of the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Sub-Regional Office, Nizamabad, vide No.AP/SRO/NZB/5211/2005- 06/267, dated 12.09.2005 and consequential Order No.AP/SRO/NZB/Recovery/5211/2005-06, dated 19.09.2005 and quash the same as illegal and arbitrary. 2. An extent of Ac.7.26 guntas at Armoor, Nizamabad district, has been acquired for construction of bus station and depot under Award dated 19.10.1982. The land owners, aggrieved by the compensation fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer, got the matter referred to civil Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The reference came to be entertained by the Additional District Judge, Nizamabad, as O.P.No.89 of 1984. The O.P. came to be disposed of on 06.11.2002. The Land Acquisition Officer, Nizamabad, filed an appeal being A.S.No.668 of 2004 before this Court and obtained stay of execution of the decree passed in O.P.No.89 of 1984. Pending the appeal half of the decretal amount came to be deposited. Ultimately, the matter came to be remanded back to the civil Court for fresh disposal. On remand, the value of the land was fixed at Rs.90/- per sq. yard together with other statutory benefits on 06.11.2002. Thereupon, the petitioner-APSRTC filed an appeal being AS No.2661 of 2003 and obtained stay of execution of the decree passed in O.P.No.89 of 1984. Pursuant to the interim orders, 1/4th of the decretal amount came to be deposited on 26.09.2003. Whileso, the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Sub-Regional Office, Nizamabad-1st respondent issued a notice on 29.01.2003 to the petitioner-APSRTC contending that M/s.Bakram Beedi Works, Armoor, failed to pay arrears of employees provident fund amount to a tune of Rs.28,81,636/- and directed the petitioner-APSRTC to transfer the said amount payable to the land owners to the credit of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Sub-Regional Office, Nizamabad. Assailing the said order, the petitioner-APSRTC filed this Writ Petition. 3. Rule Nisi came to be issued on 05.10.2005. The respondents entered appearance and filed counter-affidavit. 4. It is stated in the counter-affidavit that the land owned by M/s.Bakran Beedi Works, Armoor, had been acquired for the benefit of the APSRTC and therefore, the APSRTC is liable to pay the amounts due to the workers by M/s.Bakran Beedi Works, Armoor. For better appreciation, I may refer para.5 of the counter-affidavit, which reads as hereunder: “5. In reply to para.7 of the writ petition it is submitted that the Prohibitory Order issued are well within the jurisdiction of the Respondent Authorities. The contention of the petitioners that the orders issued by the respondents on 12.09.2005 and 19.09.2005 U/s.8F of EPF & MP Act, 1952 are illegal and baseless. The provision under Section 8F (3)(1) of EPF & MP Act, 1952 reads as: “the Central Provident Fund Commission of any other officer authorized by the Central Board in this behalf may, at any time or from time to time, by notice in writing require any person from whom money is due or may become due to the employer or as the case may be the establishment or any person who holds or may subsequently hold money for or on account of the employer or, as the case may be, the establishment, to pay to the Central Provident Fund Commissioner either forthwith upon the money becoming due or being held or at or within the time specified in the notice (not being before the money becomes due or is held) so much of the money as is sufficient to pay the amount due from the employer in respect of arrears or the whole of the money when it is equal to or less than that amount.” As the petitioner is holding money due to the partners of M/s.Bakran Beedi Works, the prohibitory order U/s.8F 3(1) of the Act for a sum of Rs.18,40,431/- issued to the petitioners to remit the dues was in accordance with the provisions of the Act.” 5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-APSRTC submits that the APSRTC has not acquired any of the lands owned by M/s.Bakran Beedi Works, Armoor, and therefore, question of complying the demand made by the 1st respondent does not arise. 7. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the land owners are the partners of M/s.Bakran Beedi Works, Armoor, and therefore, any compensation payable for the lands acquired for construction of bus station of the APSRTC, the APSRTC is liable to be attached under the provisions of the Employees’ Provident fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. 8. The issue that calls for adjudication is, whether the land owners are the partners of M/s.Bakran Beedi Works, Armoor? No material has been placed before this Court that the land owners are the partners of M/s.Bakran Beedi Works, Armoor,. The petitioner- APSRTC has specifically asserted in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition that the lands owned by M/s.Bakran Beedi Works, Armoor, had not been acquired by the APSRTC. Such is the assertion made by the APSRTC, it is for the respondents to establish that the land owners are partners of M/s.Bakran Beedi Works, Armoor, and thereby APSRTC is liable for the amounts due under the provisions of the Employees’ Provident fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. There being no such material placed on record, the notice vide No.AP/SRO/NZB/5211/2005-06/267, dated 12.09.2005 and consequential Order No.AP/SRO/NZB/Recovery/5211/2005-06, dated 19.09.2005 issued by the 1st respondent cannot be sustained. 9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed and the notice No.AP/SRO/NZB/5211/2005-06/267, dated 12.09.2005 and consequential Order No.AP/SRO/NZB/Recovery/5211/ 2005-06, dated 19.09.2005, issued by the 1st respondent are hereby quashed. No costs. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:04th August, 2010. cs THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Writ Petition No.21673 of 2005 Dated:04th August, 2010