IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 15594 of 2008 Between: The Khammam District Cooperative Marketing Society Ltd Rep.by its Business Manager at 6-1-306 V.D.os Colony Khammam District ..... PETITIONER AND Employees Provident Funds Organization Sub Regional Office Warangal Rep.by its Asst.P.F Commissioner At H.No.24-7-207/15 Near REC Petrol Pump Khazipet,Warangal District .....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 issue writ or direction preferably writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings issued by the respondent vide proc No.AP/SRO/WGL/P.D cell/4829/08-09-53 and AP/SRO/WGL/P.D Cell /3084/08-09-54 dt.17-6-2008 received by the petitioner on 8-7-2008 in respect of 2 accounts ie A/C No.AP 4829 and another A/C No.AP 3084 as without jurisdiction illegal arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently declare that the petitioner society is not liable to pay interest of and damages as demanded in the impugned proceedings and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.KOWTURU VINAYA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.R.N.REDDY (SC FOR EMPLOY'S PF ORG.) The Court made the following : ORDER This writ petition has been ﬁled by the Khammam District Cooperative Marketing Society Limited represented by its Business Manager assailing the proceedings No.AP/SRO/WGL/P.D.Cell/4829/08- 09/53 and AP/SRO/WGL/P.D.Cell/3084/08-09/54, dated 17.6.2008 issued by the respondent. The petitioner is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act. The main object of the petitioner- Society is to serve the farming community by providing fertilizers, pesticides, seeds and other marketing facilities. The ﬁnancial situation of the society was in a bad shape from 1990 to 2006. It is the contention of the petitioner-Society that it is not covered under the provisions of Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and therefore, any demand made by the respondent towards interest and penal damages for the alleged belated payments of provident fund dues is unjustiﬁed. For better understanding of the grievance of the petitioner, I deem it appropriate to refer to paragraph No.5 of the aﬃdavit, ﬁled in support of the writ petition, which reads as hereunder: “I respectfully submit that as regards the period 03/1992 to 02/1996 the demand for interest and damages being made by the respondent vide order dated 17.6.2008 ought to be treated as a stale proceedings. After a lapse of about 16 years a stale demand is being made for interest under Section 7Q and for damages under Section 14B. I submit a perusal of the order dated 17.6.2008 clearly reveals that neither have the respondent considered the laudable objects for which the petitioner society was established and the bad ﬁnancial situation of the petitioner society nor have they pointed out any reasons warranting a stale demand. I submit in the absence of a detailed enquiry and a reasoned order for imposing interest and damages nearly after 16 years, the said order of 17.6.2008 ought to be declared as a nullity.” Rule Nisi came to be issued on 21.7.2008. The respondent ﬁled counter-aﬃdavit. A.K.Singh has sworn to the counter-affidavit. It is stated in the counter-aﬃdavit that the petitioner-Society is covered under the provisions of Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short ‘the Act’) with eﬀect from 1-11-1975 with code number AP/295 and that the petitioner never disputed the applicability of the Act and paid the contributions. It is further stated that a statutory appeal is available to the petitioner-Society to challenge the proceedings impugned in the writ petition. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner-Society comes within the purview of Section 61-(1) of the Act and therefore, provisions of the Act cannot be made applicable. He further submits that the appeal ﬁled by the petitioner before the appellate Tribunal is pending and therefore, demanding the petitioner for payment of interest, penalty and damages on the alleged payment of provident fund dues cannot be sustained. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the petitioner-Society is covered under the Act with eﬀect from 1.11.1975 and accordingly, contributions have been paid by it. Thus, the petitioner-society cannot be permitted to contend that it is not covered by the provisions of the Act. The petitioner-Society has suﬀered various orders under the provisions of the Act. It ﬁled two writ petitions being WP No.4687 of 2002 and WP No.22388 of 2006. WP No.4687 of 2002 came to be disposed of directing the petitioner to avail the statutory remedy of appeal. It appears that the petitioner ﬁled an appeal before the Tribunal and the said appeal is stated to be pending. The impugned proceedings in the writ petition came to be issued by the respondent with regard to payment of interest and damages on the delayed payments of provident fund dues. The respondent issued the impugned proceedings under Section 14-B of the Act. A statutory remedy of appeal is provided under Section 7-g of the Act. Therefore, the petitioner has to avail the statutory remedy of appeal. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. __________ 05-11-2008 rkk