IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY MONDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JUNE, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY WRIT PETITION No.3131 of 2005 Between: Gayatri Vidya Niketan, Gajulapet, Nizamabad, Reptd., by its Correspondent Sri Rajender Singh. … Petitioner And Employees Provident Fund Organization, Sub-Regional Office, Nyalkal road, Nizamabad, Reptd., by its Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner (Enforcement), Nizamabad. … Respondent Counsel for the petitioners: Sri A.K.Jayaprakash Rao. Counsel for the respondents: Sri R.N.Reddy. This 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 Writ of Mandamus to set aside orders dated 29-11-2004 and proceedings dated 14-1-2004 as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner, a School, suffered an exparte order on 14-1-2004 passed by the respondent under Section 7-A of the Employees’ Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short “the Act”). The petitioner filed an application for setting aside the said order and to hear it on merits. By order dated 29- 11-2004 the said application was dismissed on two grounds viz., that the application was filed by the petitioner beyond the period of three months from the date of communication of the order; and that the petitioner failed to show sufficient reasons, with documentary proof, that it was prevented from appearing before the respondent at the hearing of the proceedings under Section 7-A of the Act. A perusal of the averments contained in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition shows that the correspondent of the petitioner could not appear before the respondent on account of serious sickness of his son, which caused mental disturbance to him. The petitioner also explained that on coming to know about the exparte order, he made an application on 8- 11-2004 to set aside the exparte order, along with a delay condone petition, and the respondent dismissed the same by the impugned order. Having considered the explanation offered by the petitioner, I am of the view that the petitioner was able to make out a sufficient cause for its non-appearance at the hearing and non-filing of an application for setting aside the exparte order within the prescribed time. As serious civil consequences would flow, the respondent ought to have shown a liberal attitude in considering the application of the petitioner for setting aside the exparte order dated 14-1-2004. For the aforementioned reasons, the Writ Petition is allowed. Order dated 29-11-2004 is set aside. Respondent is directed to dispose of the proceedings under Section 7-A of the Act afresh, after hearing the petitioner, whose representative shall be present before the respondent on 11-8-2008 without any notice with all the relevant records. If the petitioner fails to appear on the said date without sufficient reason, the respondent is entitled to proceed with the enquiry exparte and pass appropriate orders. ------------------------------------ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J 23-6-2008 MNR