Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.9570 of 2009 Dated 27th July, 2011 Between: Bodlapati Krishna Reddy …Petitioner And The Recovery Officer and Regional/ Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Guntur and another. …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri K.V.Bhanu Prasad Counsel for respondent No.1 : Sri R.N.Reddy, SC for Employees Provident Fund Office Counsel for respondent No.2 : Asst G.P for Home The Court made the following: Order: At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.1 in issuing the warrant of arrest without serving the show cause notice on the petitioner and directing respondent No.2 to arrest the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of principles of natural justice. The petitioner has suffered an order of determination under Section 7-A of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short ‘the EPF Act’), for a sum of Rs.1,63,173/-. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has not filed any appeal against the said order and as a result, the said order has attained finality. In execution of the said order, respondent No.1 has issued warrant of arrest on 17/18-03-2009 requiring respondent No.2 to arrest the petitioner. This action of respondent No.1 is assailed in this writ petition. At the hearing, the only contention advanced by Sri K.V.Bhaskar Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the mandatory show cause notice required to be issued by respondent No.1 before issuing the warrant of arrest against the petitioner was not served on his client. Learned counsel further submitted that the purported show cause notice, dated 23.01.2009, enclosed to the warrant of arrest was never served on the petitioner. Sri R.N.Reddy, learned Standing Counsel representing respondent No.1, has fairly conceded that there is no proof of service of show cause notice, dated 23.01.2009, on the petitioner. It is not in dispute that the warrant of arrest shall be preceded by a show cause notice in terms of Schedule-II of the Income Tax Act, which is made applicable to the provisions of the EPF Act. Since the issue pertains to the personal liberty of the petitioner and in the absence of proof of service of such mandatory notice on the petitioner, the warrant of arrest cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the warrant of arrest, dated 17/18.03.2009 issued by respondent No.1 is quashed. Liberty is, however, reserved to respondent No.1 to take fresh action for the arrest of the petitioner after issuing the show cause notice to him. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is allowed. As a sequel to allowing the writ petition, W.V.M.P.No.1832 of 2011 and W.P.M.P.No.12475 of 2009 are disposed of as infructuous. ______________________ (C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) 27th July, 2011 DR