IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 11398 of 2009 Between: M./s.New Tandoori Inn,D.No.47-10-8, Shop No.7 Municipal Complex,Dwarakanagar,Visakhapatnam rep.by its Managing partner M.Appalanaidu ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner -cum Authorized officer,Employees provident Fund Organization Sub REgional office, N.A.D.Post,Visakhapatnam 2 The Recovery Officer/The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner,Employees PRovident Fund Organization Sub Regional office,N.A.D.Post, Visakhapatnam .....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 writ or direction particularly in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ declaring the proceedings No.AP/VP/PDcell./CC54/AP/37065/2009/2968 dated 19.1.2009/4.2.2009 on the file of the 1st respondent and consequential order of the 2nd respondent dated 22.5.2009 as illegal, void without power and jurisdiction and set aside the same and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.V.R.AVULA Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.R.N.REDDY (SC FOR EMPLOY'S PF ORG.) The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 11398 of 2009 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the proceedings of the 1st respondent dated 4.2.2009 as well as the consequential order dated 22.5.2009, are arbitrary and illegal. It is not in dispute that the 1st respondent herein passed an order on 19.1.2009/4.2.2009 under Section 14-B of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short ‘the Act’) levying penal damages on the alleged belated remittances of the statutory dues by the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred a review petition on 16.2.2009. The said review petition has been acknowledged by the 1st respondent and by proceedings dated 17.3.2009, the petitioner was also called upon to submit certain documents. Thereafter, though no furthers orders are passed on the Review Petition, the impugned prohibitory order dated 31.3.2009 and the consequential order dated 22.5.2009 were issued for attachment of the movable and immovable properties of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same this writ petition is filed contenting that the impugned coercive steps initiated by the respondents while keeping the petitioner’s review petition pending is arbitrary and illegal. Sri R.N.Reddy, the learned Standing Counsel, who accepted notice for the respondents submitted that the review petition itself is not maintainable under Section 7-B of the Act as against an order passed under Section 14-B of the Act. Be that as it may, since, the petitioner’s review petition has been entertained by the 1st respondent and the orders are yet to be passed, I am of the opinion that the respondents ought not to have initiated any coercive steps for implementation of the order dated 19.1.2009/4.2.2009. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion as to the liability of the petitioner, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the 1st respondent to dispose of the review petition filed by the petitioner in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. No costs. The learned counsel for the petitioner also undertakes that the copy of the document as required by the 1st respondent vide proceedings dated 17.3.2009 would be produced within one week from today. Till such time, the respondents are directed not to take any coercive steps against the petitioner. _______________ Justice G.Rohini Date:11.06.2009 mrb