Disposed

R v. S S N a Rama Raju v the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC10 May 2023WP/11837/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Andhra Pradesh disposed of a writ petition where the petitioner challenged a show cause notice regarding EPF contributions. The court did not adjudicate merits but issued interim relief to submit an explanation and barred coercive steps pending disposal.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to submit detailed explanation with documents to respondents within two weeks; respondents barred from taking any coercive steps regarding the demand pending consideration.

R v S S N a Rama Raju Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

! J

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AIWlARAVATI

¶4

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

WEDNESDAY. THE TENTH DAY OF MAY U TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE S

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA ""

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO: 11837 OF 20?-'^

Between:

Ch™ board ®o?-

...PETITIONER

DiAfct""™"®”"®^’ E^downtents Department, Gollapudi, Vijayawada, NTR

¶13

...RESPONDENTS

¶14

circumS P-V-S ‘'’®‘ pleased to issue Twri or Ord^r ™ ‘'’®''®''«’. ‘he High Court may be of Writ Of Mandamu^ D^clfring t"e S o"f ‘'’® "®'“‘® 3rd respondent temole to nav th® Pm i respondent in directing the for the period 04/2015 to 07/2022 ®^ere of provident fund contribution arbitrary and violative of Artkle^l^ 21 9T So bad. illegal, and consequently direct the^4 h rest^ndem nn*! ^ohs’^uhon of India Act, 1952 from the 3rd respondenuimpte

¶15

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶16

in the rffidavS We^hiXportLfke ®‘®‘®‘’ to direct the 4th respondent not to inS n? ?'’ "’®'''’® P'®®®®'' fund contribution from the 3rd respondent to employer's provident 04/2015 to 07/2022. respondent to the tone of Rs. 14.78.129/- from

¶17

¶18

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. D V SASIDHAR Counsel for the Respondents No.1 & 2: GP SERVICES II Respondents No.3: SRI K MADHAVA REDDY SC FOR

¶20

cNUOWMENTS

¶21

Counsel for the Respondents No.4 : T.BALAJI, SC The Court made the following: ORDER

'■7

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION No.11837 of 2023

¶26

ORDER:

¶27

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the

¶28

Constitution Of India seeking the following relief:

¶29

’to issue a Writ or Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus Declaring the action of the 4^^ respondent in directing the 3"^ respondent temple to pay the Employers share of provident fund contribution for the period 04/2015 to 07/2022 to the tune of Rs. 14,78,129/- as bad, illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 21, 25 and 300A of Constitution of India and consequently direct the 4*’^ respondent not to make any claims under EPF Act, 1952 from the 3'’'* respondent temple and pass such other order or orders... ” 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. learned

¶30

Government Pleader and Sri T.Balaji, learned Standing Counsel

¶31

appearing for the respondents.

¶32

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a Chairman of the temple notified under provisions of Endowments Act. He submits that the cadre strength of the

¶33

subject temple is only 18 as per the proceedings of the Assistant

¶34

Commissioner/ Regional Joint Commissioner, Endowments, Kakinada. He further submits that the employees provident

I ii

i I .

fund and miscellaneous provisions Act, 1952 will applicable only to the establishments, Where the strength of the employees fo more than 20. Admitted!; ' ly. the cadre strength of the subject temple Is only 18. Therefore, the p ■revisions of the subject act is not at all applicable to the case on hand. He furUrer submits that the temples and charitable institutions are not at all construed as an establishments as defined under subject act. Therefore, the subject temple, for which the show cause notice <latedO8.OZ2O23 was issued may not come in the way and not at all enforceable. Hence, the writ petition.

¶39

On the other hand, learned standing Counsel submits that it is only a show cause notice requesting the petitioner herein who is representing the temple to submit his explanation. He further submits th at if there is any exemption from the said scheme also to be . adjudicated before the authorities ‘concerned regarding the non-application of the provisions of the Act. He further submits th, at after considering the explanation and entire scheme of the Act, the 4th -pondent would pass appropriate orders in a reasonable thne. 5. Heard the submission ■ns made by both the learned counsel for the parties, the fact remains that the impugned notice under

H L

challenge is only a show cause notice issued by the 4^^

¶47

r™ fc 3~

¶48

**• **

¶49

“P- ■■ - ....«... the 4th respondent herein.

¶50

For the conoidrrrng Ur. fe... stated above, and present Writ Petition can be disposed of directing th. e petitioner to submit a detailed explanation along with all the required documents to the 3ft* and 4th respondents herein. within a period of two (02) weeks from' today. On receipt of the said explanation, the 4th respondent and the authorities concerned shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders within a period the 4‘h wected not to take any coercive steps regarding the amount demanded in the showcase notice.

•=®=aaan

<br>

\ ■
\ .

With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶57

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶58

Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in

¶59

the writ petition shall stand closed.

¶60

SD/- K. KASI RAO ACHARI
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
//TRUE COPY//
To, SECTION OFFICER
Revenue (Endowments) Deoartment
Princ1pal%CTete^."®‘ ^“'“'"9®’ Amaravathi, Guntur Distrid. Rep. by its
Department, Gollapudi, Vijayawada, NTR I
4 KO—
Ra®amatendravS'.°®'°"®'' Provident Fund, Regional Officer, ' ■ i
C 9^^® 22 Advocate [OPUCl =
Gop'ief”Of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT]

HIGH COURT

DATED:05/05/2023

S 0 g SE? 2®
•*#
^^^esPATCIjSl

¶67

ORDER

¶68

WP.No.11837 of 2023

¶69

DISPOSING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS

¶70

R v. S S N a Rama Raju v the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R v. S S N a Rama Raju v the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Winfinith Marketing Private Limited Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Potluri Nageswara Rao Vs the State of Ap

Jallu Lakshmana Murthy Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Bojedla Ramarao Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Adapa Chandrasekhar Vs the State of Ap

D Kaseem Vali Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh