THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA WRIT PETITION No.19794 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner asserts that he along with his friends established a primary school under the name and style of Sri Vishwa Vignan Public School in Kisan Nagar in 2003 after obtaining sanction from the District Educational Officer for the academic year 2003-2004. Later, it was closed in 2005 due to financial crisis and difference of opinion between its partners. By his letter, dated 16.08.2005, the petitioner informed the District Educational Officer as regards the closure of the school. Thereafter, on the ground that the petitioner failed to remit the amount of Rs.32,784/- towards arrears under Section 8C of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short ‘the Act’), the second respondent issued notice, dated 18.12.2008 calling for his personal appearance and show cause as to why he should not be committed to the Civil Prison. The petitioner pleaded that though he approached the second respondent for submitting explanation, the second respondent did not receive the same. Subsequently, to his utter surprise, the second respondent issued warrant of arrest, dated 31.08.2009 against him under Sections 8B to 8G of the Act. Challenging the same, he filed the present writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for Provident Fund appearing for the respondents. On 16.09.2009, this Court while issuing notice before admission to the respondents, granted stay of the impugned warrant of arrest and directed the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents to get instructions as to whether any order under Section 7-A of the Act is passed before issuance of the impugned warrant of arrest. Today, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents produced before this Court a copy of order, dated 27.01.2006 passed under Section 7-A of the Act by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Sub- Regional Office, Nizamabad, and submitted that the said order was served on the petitioner on the same day through one Srinivas, teacher and therefore, the petitioner is liable to pay the disputed amount. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the notice was issued in the name of the petitioner’s school and not in the name of the petitioner and therefore, he is not liable to pay the disputed amount. A perusal of order, dated 27.01.2006 produced by the learned Standing Counsel shows that the competent authority ordered that the disputed amount should be paid by the petitioner’s school, within fifteen days from the date of receipt of that order. It further shows that it is an ex parte order. As submitted by the learned Standing Counsel, the said order was served on the petitioner through one Srinivas, teacher. However, it is not clear from the acknowledgement produced by the learned Standing Counsel that the said Srinivas, teacher, was worked with the petitioner’s school or not. Nevertheless, it is the bounden duty of the respondents to see that the order should be served by way of registered post with acknowledgement due or on the responsible officer of the petitioner’s school, and they cannot serve the order through the said Srinivas, teacher as if it was served on the petitioner. Therefore, the submission of the learned Standing Counsel cannot be accepted. Apart from that, the competent authority has not given any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before passing order, dated 27.01.2006. In the circumstances, the order, dated 27.01.2006 passed under Section 7-A of the Act and the consequential impugned warrant of arrest are set aside. However, the respondents are at liberty to initiate proceedings against the petitioner under the Act after issuing proper notice and giving an opportunity to the petitioner. The writ petition is accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ N.V.RAMANA, J 23rd SEPTEMBER, 2009. kvni