THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.5565 OF 2010 Dated 10th March, 2010 Between: R.R.Prasad …Petitioner And Recovery Officer, Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation and another …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri M.Gowri Shankar Counsel for the respondents : Sri R.N.Reddy (Standing Counsel) The Court made the following ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside order dated 18.06.2009 and to consequently direct the respondents not to proceed with the recovery of the amounts in pursuance of the said order. The petitioner is an establishment falling under the provisions of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short “the Act”). The petitioner’s liability was determined, by order dated 18.06.2009, under Section 7-A of the Act. Questioning the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal before respondent No.2. Respondent No.2, by order dated 15.09.2009, granted conditional stay. Through notice dated 08.02.2010, respondent No.1 sought recovery of the amount determined against the petitioner. In the present writ petition, the plea of the petitioner is that when the appellate authority is seized of the appeal and an interim order is in existence, it is not permissible for respondent No.1 to issue the impugned notice. At the hearing, Sri R.N.Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, on instructions, submitted that the petitioner failed to comply with the conditional order passed by respondent No.2 and therefore, respondent No.1 issued the impugned notice. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not specifically denied this submission of the learned Standing Counsel. In my opinion, this writ petition is wholly misconceived because when the order passed by respondent No.1 is the subject matter of a statutory appeal before respondent No.2, the petitioner is not entitled to approach this Court for setting aside the said order during pendency of the appeal. If the petitioner feels that the impugned notice is in violation of the interim order passed by respondent No.2, the only remedy open to the petitioner is to seek appropriate relief before respondent No.2. At any rate, as the petitioner has allegedly violated the conditional order passed by respondent No.2, he cannot ventilate any grievance even on this count. For the above mentioned reasons, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, WPMP No.7144 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 10th March, 2010 vrn