IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.7481 of 2008 Between: M/s. Panchavati Mega Mart 5-07-233, Beside Sindh Bhavan, Tilak Road, Nizamabad , Rep. by its Manager, Sri R. Srinivas S/o. R. Gundaiah, Aged 38 yrs, R/o. Nizamabad. ..... PETITIONER AND Employees' Provident Fund Organization, Rep. by its Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Sub Regional Officer, Nayalkal Road,Nizamabad. .....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 appropriate writ order or direction particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring that the exparte order passed by the respondent in proceedings No. AP/SRO/NZB/Enf/47188/7A/2007-08 /1032 dt. 19-12-2007 and faialing to consider the Application to set aside the exparte order as illegal, unjust contrary to law arbitrary 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 Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.A.K.JAYAPRAKASH RAO Counsel for the Respondent: MR.R.N.REDDY (SC FOR EMPLOY'S PF ORG.) The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for issuance of a writ of mandamus declaring that t h e ex parte order passed by the respondent in proceedings No.AP/SRO/ NZB/Enf/47188/7A/2007-08/1032, dated 19.12.2007, and failing to consider the application of the petitioner to set aside the said ex parte order, as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to law and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. It appears that the respondent issued the impugned assessment order under Section 7A of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short ‘the Act’) against the petitioner. Immediately thereafter, the petitioner filed a review before the respondent and the same is pending. According to the respondent, on 06.02.2008, the petitioner was asked to place all the relevant records for the purpose of verification and passing appropriate orders. Instead of doing so, the petitioner approached this Court by way of filing this writ petition and obtained interim stay on 08.04.2008. Be that as it may, this Court, while granting interim stay directed the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- and it is stated that the said order has been complied with. Therefore, the respondents are directed to dispose of the review petition purported to have been filed by the petitioner seeking review of the order passed by the respondent under Section 7A of the Act, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and till such time no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of at the stage of admission. _________________ C.V.RAMULU, J Date: 27.04.2009 va