IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 23282 of 2006 Between: 1 Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, rep.by its Chief General Manager, Telecom, A.P. Circle, Hyderabad. 2 The General Manager, Telecom District, M/s. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Park Road, Bhopal Complex, Kurnool ..... PET IT IONER(S) AND 1 The Asst. Provident Fund Commissioner& Authority, U/S 7a of EPF & MP Act, 1952, Employees Provident Fund organisation, Sub-Regional Office,1/30 R.S.Road, Cuddapah-516004 2 The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Barkarthpura, Hyderabad. .....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 to issue an order, direction or writ particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the order No.AP/39082/SRO/CDP/ENF/KNL/2006/1648, dated 17/19-10- 2006 issued by the 1st Respondent under Sec.7.A of the E.P.F, Act,1952 directing to pay an amount of Rs.7,09,594- 00 for the period from January 2002 to November 2004 as unjust, without jurisdiction, in violation of principles of natural justice and the same may be set aside and further direct the respondents not to take any consequential further proceeding under E.P.F. Act,1952 and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MS.P.SARADA Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.R.N.REDDY (SC FOR EMPLOY'S PF ORG.) The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.23282 of 2006 ORAL ORDER: This writ petition is ﬁled seeking a Mandamus declaring the order dated 17/19.10.2006 issued by the ﬁrst respondent under Section 7-A of Employees Provident Fund Act, 1952 directing payment of amount of Rs.7,09,594/- for the period from January 2002 to November 2004 as arbitrary and illegal. There is no necessity of going into all the details. The learned counsel for respondents Mr.R.N.Reddy submitted that the writ petition itself is not maintainable as the petitioners have got an eﬀective alternative remedy by way of appeal under Section 7-I of the E.P.F. Act before the appellate authority and instead of availing the said remedy, they have straightaway approached this Court. The learned counsel for petitioners states that the main seat of the appellate authority is at New Delhi and it is diﬃcult to go there and pursue the matter. I am of the view that this cannot be a ground for ﬁling the writ petition directly. Under those circumstances, petitioners are directed to ﬁle regular appeal under Section 7-I of E.P.F. Act, 1952 before the appellate authority within a period of six weeks from today. On ﬁling such appeal, the appellate authority shall entertain the same without raising any objection as to limitation and dispose of within a period of six months from the date of presentation of the appeal. It is made clear that during the pendency of the said appeal, the impugned order stands suspended. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. ____________ C.V.RAMULU, J Date: 16.9.2008 Note: Issue C.C. in one week. B/o DA THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.23282 of 2006 16.9.2008