THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI Writ Petition No. 15302 of 2010 Dated: 05.07.2010 Between: R.R.Prasad, Hyderabad. … Petitioner And The Recovery Officer, Hyderabad and another. … Respondents THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 15302 of 2010 O R D E R : This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus directing the 1st respondent- Recovery Officer Employees Provident Fund Organization to withdraw the order dated 08.02.2010 after setting aside the order dated 18.06.2009 passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner under Section 7-A of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 ( for short ‘the E.P.F. Act’). I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri R.N.Reddy, learned standing counsel appearing for the Employees Provident Fund Organisation. The material available on record shows that an order was passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner on 18.06.2009 under Section 7-A of the E.P.F. Act determining the amounts due from the M/s. Sreeram Engineering Industries under the provisions of the E.P.F.Act and the schemes made thereunder for the period from 8/2005 to 9/2008 and challenging the same the petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 7-I of the E.P.F. Act before the E.P.F. Appellate Tribunal. The petitioner also filed an application for exemption of the requirement under Section 7-O, which mandates depositing 75% of the amount as determined under Section 7-A of the Act. The Tribunal, by order dated 15.09.2009, reduced the condition of pre-deposit of 75% to 40% and granted eight weeks time to the petitioner for depositing the same and subject to the deposit of the said amount, the appeal was admitted. At that stage, the petitioner filed W.P.No.5565 of 2010 challenging the order dated 18.06.2009 made under Section 7-A of the E.P.F. Act as well as the order dated 15.09.2000 passed by the Tribunal. The said writ petition was dismissed by this Court by order dated 10.03.2010. In the meanwhile, a notice of demand dated 08.02.2010 was issued by the 1st respondent calling upon the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.14,79,793/- as per the Special Recovery Certificate No.2/2010 dated 03.02.2010 within 15 days, failing which, steps would be taken to realise the amount in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 8B to 8G of the E.P.F. Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the determination under Section 7-A of the E.P.F. Act which was made without verification of records and without taking into consideration the documentary evidence available with the petitioner was wholly erroneous and contrary to law. It is further contended that even the petitioner’s appeal was dismissed at the threshold ignoring the documentary evidence to show the financial position of the petitioner as well as the incorrect calculation made while making the order under Section 7-A of the Act. It is contended that the entire action of the respondents is arbitrary, illegal and in violation of the principles of natural justice and therefore, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. On a careful consideration of the material placed before this Court, I do not find substance in any of the above contentions. As noticed above, the petitioner had earlier filed W.P.No.5565 of 2010 challenging the order dated 18.06.2009 passed by the Provident Fund Commissioner under Section 7-A of the E.P.F. Act and the same was dismissed by this Court holding that the petitioner was not entitled to approach this Court while the statutory appeal was pending. It is also clear that the petitioner’s statutory appeal stood dismissed by order dated 25.05.2010, as the petitioner had failed to comply with the order passed by the Tribunal dated 15.09.2009 with regard to pre-deposit under Section 7-O of the E.P.F. Act. Admittedly, the Tribunal’s order dated 25.05.2010 has become final. Hence, it is always open to the 1st respondent to take steps for recovery of the amounts due from the petitioner. Having failed to comply with the mandatory requirement of pre-deposit under Section 7-O of the Act, and having allowed the statutory appeal to be dismissed, the petitioner cannot be permitted to contend before this Court that the determination under Section 7-A of the Act was erroneous and illegal. The notice of demand dated 08.02.2010 issued by the 1st respondent-Recovery Officer was also rightly issued as the six weeks time granted by the Tribunal on 15.09.2009 for depositing the 40% of the amount determined under Section 7-A of the E.P.F. Act expired long back and no stay was in operation. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition, which is devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI, J Date: 05.07.2010 KLP