IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.16741 of 2008 Between: M/s. The Chittoor District Scheduled Castes Service Coop., Society Ltd., Chittoor. … Petitioner And The Asst. Provident Fund Commissioner & Authority, Sub-Regional office, Kadapa, Kadapa District & others. … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri M. Ganga Rao Counsel for respondent No.1: Sri R.N. Reddy The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.16741 of 2008 ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside proceedings dated 13.06.2008 and consequential attachment proceedings dated 02.07.2008 of respondent No.1. The petitioner is the Chittoor District Scheduled Castes Service Cooperative Society Limited, Chittoor. Proceedings under the provisions of the Employees’ Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short, “the Act”) were initiated for recovery of the contribution towards provident fund payable by the petitioner in respect of its employees. After holding an enquiry under Section 7-A of the Act, an order was passed on 13.06.2008 determining the petitioner’s liability by respondent No.1 at Rs.39,14,922/-. As the petitioner failed to pay the said amount, an order of attachment was passed on 02.07.2008. Questioning both these orders, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. At the hearing, Sri M. Ganga Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that even before filing of the writ petition, respondent No.1 has recovered Rs.30 lakhs from the petitioner’s account. He further submitted that respondent No.1 has passed the impugned order ignoring the relevant material furnished by the petitioner and therefore the same is not sustainable. Sri R.N. Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.1, submitted that the very writ petition itself filed bypassing the statutory remedy of appeal cannot be entertained. It is not in dispute that under Section 7-D of the Act, the aggrieved party is entitled to file an appeal. Therefore, in my opinion, the writ petition cannot be maintained in the face of the effective alternative remedy provided under the abovementioned provision. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal. If such an appeal is filed within a period of one month from today, the appellate authority shall entertain and dispose of the same on merits without raising any objection on limitation. Since the petitioner has deposited the substantial amount of Rs.30 lakhs, the balance amount shall not be recovered, pending the appeal. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, WPMP.Nos.21713 and 21714 of 2008 and WVMP.No.2673 of 2009 are also dismissed. __________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 13.07.2010. ES