HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No.17016 of 2011 Date: August 25, 2011 Between: The Municipal Council, Siddipet, District Medak, Represented by Town Planning Supervisor-cum-in-charge Commissioner Abdul Faheem. … Petitioner And The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner and Authority U/s. 7-A, Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation (Ministry of Labour, Govt. of India, Sub-Regional Office, Siddipet, Medak District, Andhra Pradesh. … Respondent * * * HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No.17016 of 2011 O R D E R: This writ petition has been filed questioning the validity and legality of the Prohibitory Order dated 28th March 2011 issued by the respondent-Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Sub- Regional Office, Siddipet, Medak, demanding the banker of the petitioner Municipal Council to pay the amount covered by the order passed on 31st December 2010, as bad in law. 2. It is pointed out by the learned standing counsel Sri R.N. Reddy that on 20th June 2011 while issuing notice before admission in the above matter, this Court permitted the writ petitioner to move an application in terms of sub-Section (4) of Section 7A of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, on or before 27.6.2011. In case if an application is moved, appropriate consideration be shown to the same and an order be passed within a period of two weeks thereafter. Till such time, the Prohibitory Order dated 28.3.2011 was asked not to be given effect to. 3. Today when the matter was taken up, the learned standing counsel Sri R.N. Reddy would submit that the petitioner did file a representation on 27th June 2011 and an opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner on 05.7.2011. On 05.7.2011 the learned counsel for the writ petitioner attended, but the enquiry could not be conducted and hence it is adjourned to 11th July 2011. On 11th July 2011 the learned standing counsel for the writ petitioner appeared and participated in the enquiry. Thereafter, dealing with the various contentions canvassed before the authority concern, detailed orders were passed on 12th July 2011 by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner. The same were also communicated to the Municipal Commissioner and they were also served on 13th July 2011. 4. Therefore, leaving it open to the petitioner Municipal Council to challenge the correctness or otherwise of the proceedings dated 12th July 2011, the present writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ________________________________ (NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J) Date: August 25, 2011. BSB