THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.22715 of 2005 Date:20.06.2011 Between: Bakran Beedi Works ..... Petitioner AND The Employees’ Provident Fund Organization, Delhi and others .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Dr. K.Lakshmi Narasimha Counsel for Respondents: Sri Y. Ravindra The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in seeking to collect an amount of Rs.18.40 lakhs as dues as on 31.10.2004 as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner is the Managing Partner of Bakran Beedi Works, Armoor, Nizamabad. The dispute pertains to damages payable on provident fund arrears under Section 14-B of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short ‘the Act’). By the impugned proceedings dated 03.03.2005, the petitioner was called upon to pay the damages towards provident fund dues to the extent of Rs.18.40 lakhs as on 31.10.2004. In the counter-affidavit filed by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, it is inter alia stated that the petitioner is liable to pay employees provident fund contribution under the Act, that the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner initiated proceedings under Section 14- B of the Act for the delayed payments and that notice dated 15.02.1999 was served on the petitioner which was returned with endorsement “not claimed”. It is further stated that after giving sufficient adjournments, a final order under Section 14-B of the Act was passed, vide proceedings dated 28.08.1999, levying penal damages of Rs.18,40,431/- for the delayed payments of contribution by the petitioner for the period from 6/1977 to 9/1985. It is also averred that in W.P.No.22547 of 2005, a Division Bench of this Court, while disposing of the said writ petition, directed the State Bank of Hyderabad, Armoor, to deposit the dues payable in respect of the employees provident fund pertaining to the petitioner company as claimed by respondent No.1 herein after realization of sale proceeds of the immovable property admeasuring Acs.6.18 guntas belonging to the petitioner. Sri Y.Ravindra, learned standing counsel for respondent No.1, submitted that the impugned proceedings are generic in nature, which are issued with a view to recover the amount of Rs.18,40,431/-, which was due as on 31.10.2004 in pursuance of the order passed in the year 1999 determining the petitioner’s liability under Section 14-B of the Act. He further submitted that the said order having not been challenged, the petitioner cannot seek to interdict respondent No.1 from recovering the said amount. He further submitted that in spite of the directions given by this Court in W.P.No.22547 of 2005, the State Bank of Hyderabad has not deposited the amount due from the petitioner to respondent No.1 and that appropriate steps are being taken for enforcement of the said order. Dr.K.Lakshmi Narasimha, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that his client has not received the purported order dated 28.08.1999 and that his client is in possession of the order dated 02.08.1999. The learned standing counsel clarified that the order determining the petitioner’s liability under Section 14-B of the Act was actually passed on 27.07.1999 and the same was sent to the petitioner through covering letter dated 02.08.1999. Whether the said order was dated 02.08.1999 or 28.08.1999, the same purported to determine the petitioner’s liability under Section 14-B of the Act. So long as that order remains in force, no relief can be granted in favour of the petitioner. If aggrieved, the petitioner shall be free to challenge the said proceedings by way of availing appropriate remedy, in accordance with law, before appropriate Forum. Subject to the above observations, the Writ Petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, interim order dated 25.11.2005 in W.P.M.P.No.29095 of 2005 is vacated and W.P.M.P.No.29095 of 2005 is dismissed as infructuous. ________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 20th June, 2011 GHN