IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SWAROOP REDDY WRIT PETITION No.643 OF 2002 Between: G.N. Products (P) Ltd., Rep. by G.Nagabhushana Rao, Managing Director, Spinning Mill, Adoni. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Recovery Officer, Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Bhavishyanidhi Bhavan, Barkatpura, Hyderabad-27. 2 The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Bhavishyanidhi Bhavan, Barkatpura, Hyderabad-27. .....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 a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in arresting and detaining the petitioner under section 8-B(b) of Act 19 of 1952 on 2.1.2002 between 11 a.m. to 5.00p.m. and resummoning him on 9.1.2002 for detention without resorting to other modes of recovery of Provident Fund dues as contemplated under Proviso to Section 8-B(b) of Act 9 of 1952 as being illegal, unjust, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and pass Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI E.V. BHAGIRATHA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: SRI R.N. REDDY (SC FOR EMPLOY'S PF ORG.) The Court made the following : ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed claiming immunity from arresting and detaining the petitioner under Section 8-B(b) of Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 on 02-01-2002 between 11-00 a.m. to 5-00 p.m. and re-summoning him on 09-01-2002 without resorting to other modes of recovery of provident fund dues. 2. In view of the nature of the relief sought for, the cause in this writ petition must have become infructuous long back. 3. Further, on 01-05-2009, there was no representation for the petitioner and the matter was directed to be listed after summer vacation, and today also when it came up for hearing for the first time after the summer vacation, none appears for the petitioner. 4. Therefore, the Writ Petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. ____________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J July 17, 2009. PV