IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 1748 of 2001 Between: M/s/ A.K. Minerals a firm registered under Partnership Act Rep. by its Partner Sri. A. Venkataramana, S/o. late a. Ranganatham, R/o. D.No. 1/125, Near Railway Station, Cuddapah Town,. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Assistant Commissioner of Provident Fund, Provident Fund Office, Cuddapah., 2 A. Ramachandra 2 to 4 are sons, Residing at D.No. 1/125, near Railway Satation, Cuddapah Town, 3 A. Saikumar, 2 to 4 are sons, Residing at D.No. 1/125, near Railway Satation, Cuddapah Town, 4 A. Amarnath, Nos. 2 to 4 are sons, Residing at D.No. 1/125, near Railway Satation, Cuddapah Town, 5 A. Rukminamma, Wife of late A. Ranganatham, Residing at D.No. 1/125, near Railway Satation, Cuddapah Town, .....RESPONDENTS 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 pertaining to the notice issued by the 1st Respondent vide notice bearing No.A.P./EO/Recovery/20100/2000-2001, dt. 9-1-2001 and quash the same by issuing a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature Writ of Certiorari. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.RAJENDER DESHMUKH Counsel for the Respondents: MR.R.N.REDDY The Court made the following ORDER: THE HON’BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI Writ Petition No.1748 of 2001 ORDER: This writ petition is filed aggrieved by the demand notice, dated 09.01.2001, issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Provident Fund, Provident Fund Office, Kadapa directing payment of Rs.64,925/- allegedly due from the petitioner-firm towards arrears of provident fund for the period from February, 1993 to February, 1995. The said notice was addressed to one A.Venkata Ramana, describing him as Managing Partner of the petitioner-firm. In this writ petition, it is contended that the petitioner- firm was reconstituted in the year 1992 and the same was registered with the Registrar of Firms under Registration No.4498/1994, dated 26.05.1994, which consists of respondents 2 to 5 as partners. It is also pleaded that A.Venkata Ramana, on whom the impugned demand notice was served, had nothing to do with the petitioner- firm, at the relevant point of time. These issues involving disputed questions of fact cannot be enquired into by this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction. It is also relevant to note that in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the first respondent, it is admitted that the assessment order for the period in question was passed ex-parte by proceedings, dated 07.05.1996. It is apparent that the impugned demand notice was issued consequent to the said assessment. In the circumstances, it is always open to the aggrieved parties to make an application under sub-section (4) of Section 7A of the Employees’ Provident Funds & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 for setting aside the ex- parte order. Since no such application is made by the petitioner, without going into the merits of the case, the writ petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to make an application under sub-section (4) of Section 7A of the Employees’ Provident Funds & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If any such application is filed within the time stipulated above, the first respondent shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. No costs. _______________ 06.02.2009 VGB