THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.2074 of 2009 Dated 21st April, 2011 Between: M/s.Green Gardens …Petitioner And The Asst.Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation, Regional Office, Bhavishyanidhi Bhavan, Barkatpura, Hyderabad and another …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri T.Balaji Counsel for respondent No.1: Sri R.N.Reddy Counsel for respondent No.2: Sri K.Kumara Swamy The Court made the following: ORDER: At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to set aside prohibitory order, vide proceedings No.AP/HY/32935/RR Circle-II/RC No.151/05/2008, dated 08.12.2008, and consequential proceedings No.AP/32935/RC No.151/O/RR Cell-II/2008/115, dated 22/29.12.2008, of respondent No.1. I have heard Sri T.Balaji, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri R.N.Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.1. The petitioner is involved in execution of the contracts for Environmental Control, Hygiene and other maintenance operation of multi-storied buildings/high-tech areas at Defence Research and Development Laboratory (DRDL), Government of India, Ministry of Defence at Kanchanbagh, Hyderabad, since 1998. According to the petitioner, it has never engaged more than 30 workers. The petitioner is stated to have been covered under the provisions of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short ‘the Act’) with code No.AP/32935. In this writ petition, it has challenged the prohibitory order, dated 08.12.2008, addressed by respondent No.1 to respondent No.2 to prohibit it from operating Account No.530 and further directing respondent No.2 to pay a sum of Rs.4,48,463/- from the said account of the petitioner. This order and the consequential action of respondent No.2 is challenged mainly on the ground that the said order was not preceded by the assessment of the petitioner’s liability as envisaged under Section 7A of the Act. In the counter affidavit filed by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner (Legal) working in the office of respondent No.1- Corporation, it is inter alia stated that an order of assessment was passed under Section 7A of the Act following which the impugned prohibitory order was issued. At the hearing, Sri R.N.Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.1, has placed before the Court the assessment order, dated 11.02.2005, of the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, (C&R), Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. The learned counsel for the petitioner stated that his client has not received this order. In my opinion, irrespective of whether the petitioner received the said order or not, the fact remains that the prohibitory order impugned in this writ petition was preceded by an assessment order. If the petitioner feels aggrieved by the said order, it is entitled to avail appropriate statutory remedy to question the same. So long as the said order remains in force, respondent No.1 is entitled to issue prohibitory order and recover the amount covered by the assessment order. Therefore, no interference with the impugned order is called for. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to avail the appropriate statutory remedy to question the assessment order. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, the interim order, dated 06.02.2009, granted by this Court in W.P.M.P.No.2624 of 2009, shall stand vacated and W.P.M.P.No.2624 of 2009 and W.V.M.P.No.3881 of 2010 are disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 21st April, 2011 VGB