Dismissed

The A.P. Paper Mills Limited, v. The Employees Provident Fund Organisation

Telangana HC26 Feb 2013WP/27076/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition seeking quashing of an assessment order without expressing opinion on merits, noting the petitioner had already invoked the statutory appeal remedy. The court extended an interim stay for six weeks during the pending appeal.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of without expressing opinion on merits; interim stay order extended for six weeks.

The A.P. Paper Mills Limited, Vs The… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

The Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.27076 of 2011

¶2

Dated 26.02.2013

¶3

Between: The A.P.Paper Mills Ltd., Rajahmundry, rep. by its Vice-President and Company Secretary Mr.C.Prabhakar

¶4

Petitioner

¶5

And

¶6

Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Rep. by its Regional P.F.Commissioner-II, Danavaipeta, Rajahmundry

¶7

…Respondent

¶8

Counsel for the petitioner: Mr.Vedula Srinivas

¶9

Counsel for the respondent: Mr.R.N.Reddy, SC for EPF

¶10

The Court made the following:

¶11

Order:

¶12

This Writ Petition is filed for the following substantive relief:

¶13

“to issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Orders, direction or Directions to quash the order of the 1^st Respondent, dated 08-08-2011, in No. AP/SRO/RJY/3802/Exemption/2011/274 in Enquiry No. 1 of 2009.”

¶14

A perusal of the proceeding sheet shows that on 2909-2011, this Court, while relegating the petitioner to file an appeal in respect of the assessment made pertaining to the contribution to pension scheme, has granted interim order staying the attachment in relation to the provident fund.

¶15

At the hearing, Mr.V.Srinivas, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that against the order impugned in this Writ Petition, his client has already availed the remedy of appeal under Section 7-I of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short ‘the Act’) covering both the aspects of pension

¶16

as well as provident fund.

¶17

In my opinion, when the petitioner has already availed the appropriate remedy of appeal, it is not necessary for this Court to adjudicate the Writ Petition on merits. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of without expressing any opinion on the merits and with liberty to the petitioner to pursue the appeal already filed by it under Section 7-I of the Act. However, to protect the interests of the petitioner till it secures an appropriate interim order in the pending appeal, interim order, dated 29-09-2011, shall be continued for a period of six weeks.

¶18

As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, WVMP.No.3659 of 2012 in/& WPMP.No.33444 of 2011 and WPMP.No.33445 of 2011 are disposed of.

¶19

_____________________ C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J

¶20

Date: 26^th February, 2013 lur

The A.P. Paper Mills Limited, v. The Employees Provident Fund Organisation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The A.P. Paper Mills Limited, v. The Employees Provident Fund Organisation

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

Syed Habibulla Shah Vs The State of a. P

Menati Lakshmamma,W/o. Narsayya, Vs The District Collector, Nellore.

Pratthi Sarojini Vs The Sub Registrar

Sunkara Jyothamma, Vs Dr. T.Radha

M.Venkata Subbaiah Vs The State of A.P.

Batchu Suryanarayana, Vs The Sub Collector