IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 3274 of 2009 Between: M/s. S.K. Chakravarty & Co., rep. by its Managing Director, R/o. 22-42-15, Town Hall Road, Visakhapatnam-530 001. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Assistant Provident Commissioner Officer Employee's Provident Fund Organization, Sub-Regional Office: NAD Post, VUDA Layout, Marripalem,Visakhapatnam-530009. 2 The Recovery Officer, Employee's Provident Fund Organization, Sub- Regional Office: NAD Post, VUDA Layout, Marripalem,Visakhapatnam- 530009. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 an appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declare the proceedings No.AP/VP/CC-53/AP/22519/2008/724 dated 5.3.2008 issued by the 2nd respondent directing the petitioner to remit an amount of Rs.48,649/- towards the statutory contributions in pursuance of Prohibitory Order dated 24.11.2006 issued by the 1st respondent as being illegal, arbitrary, and without jurisdiction and set aside the same. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.D.V.SITARAMAMURTHY Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.R.N.REDDY (SC FOR EMPLOY'S PF ORG.) The Court made the following : O R D E R:- The petitioner-organization was engaged in the business of repairs to ocean going cargo ships in the Visakhapatnma Port Trust. Owing to some accumulated losses, the petitioner-organization was closed down in the year 2000 and because of its closure, the services of all the employees were terminated and their wages with all terminal benefits were settled after negotiating with C.I.T.U. Employees Trade Union. Now, the petitioner’s grievance is that the 1st respondent issued a Prohibitory Order dated 24.11.2006 indicating that the petitioner should remit an amount of Rs.47,098.65 towards statutory contribution in respect of provident fund and interest levied under Section 7Q of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short “the Act”) for the period March, 2003 to March, 2004 The learned Standing Counsel for Provident Fund submitted that the petitioner has an alternative effective remedy under Section 7(I) of the Act, and without exhausting the remedy of appeal, he has filed this writ petition. In view of the submission made by the learned Standing Counsel that the petitioner has an effective already remedy under the provisions of the Act, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with the following directions: “The petitioner is at liberty to avail the alternative effective remedy available to him under Section 7(I) of the Act, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till such time, the respondents are directed not to take any coercive steps against the petitioner for recovery of the amount of Rs.47,098.65.” Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. ______________ N.V.RAMANA, J 19th February, 2009 bcj