IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No: 174 of 2001 BETWEEN: M/s Parameshwari Textiles Ltd., Rep. by its Director Sri Kamal Agarwal, S/o Inder Raj Agarwal, 15-2-127, Maharaj Gunj, Hyderabad-500 012. ... PETITIONER AND 1 Union of India Rep. by its Secretary, Department of Labour Central Secretariat, New Delhi. 2 The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Barkatpura, Hyderabad. 3 The Recovery Officer, O/o The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Barkatpura, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court may be pleased to issue an order, direction or writ particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring that the 3rd Respondent is not the Recovery Oﬃcer U/s. 2(kb) of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and consequently has no jurisdiction or authority to issue the proclamation sale notice No.AP/Recy/29977/Rc.No.88/2K, dt: 18-12- 2000 sale the schedule property and the same is invalid in law. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.P.V.SANJEEVA MURTHY Counsel for the Respondents: MR.R.N.REDDY The Court made the following: ORDER: None appears for the petitioner. 2. When the matter had been taken up for hearing on 19.04.2008, as none appeared, the matter was directed to be listed after summer vacation, 2008. Again when the matter has been taken up for hearing on 30.07.2008, as none appeared, it was directed to be listed under the caption ‘For Dismissal’. Even today when the matter is taken up for hearing neither the petitioner appears nor there is any representation on its behalf. 3. Petitioner-company questions the proclamation of sale dated 18.12.2000 for the sale of its property pursuant to the assessment order dated 21.12.1999 passed under Section 7-A of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short ‘the Act’) for assessing the dues payable by the petitioner-company for an amount of Rs.1,50,637/-. Thereafter, the authorized officer issued a certiﬁcate for recovery of an amount of Rs.1,13,400/- as the petitioner company already paid Rs.37,237/-. 4. As the main assessment order itself has not been questioned even otherwise as the interim order passed by this Court granting stay of all further proceedings subject to the condition of the petitioner depositing half of the demanded amount has not been complied with, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled for any relief. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ V. ESWARAIAH, J August 6, 2008 DSK