M/s. TARAKARAMA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY v. 1. The Union of lndia

Petition under Article 226 oI lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the Respondent no.4issued Prohibitory Order dated 11.02,205 vide Proceedings No. 52Q/33558-1304 to the Respondent no. 5 and Prohibitory Order dated 11.02.2025 vide Proceedings No. 52Ql33558-1304 daled 11.02.2025 to the Respondent no. 6 demanding an amount of Rs. 1,42,09,465 (Rupees One Crore Forty-Two Lakh Nine Thousand Four Hundred and Sixty Only) without giving any prior notice and hearing opportunity is illegal, arbitrary and violation of Principles of natural justice and to set aside the same and consequently direct the Respondent no. 4 not to take any coercive steps in proceedings no.52Q/33558-1304, dt.11.02.2025 and proceedings no.S2e/33558- 1304, dt.11.02.2025demanding for Rs. 1,42,09,4651-(Rupees One Crore Forty- Two Lakh Nine Thousand Four Hundred and Sixty Only) lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the :ircumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court rnay be pleased To stay of all further proceedings in proceedings no.52Q/33558-'1 304, dt 1 1.02.2025 and proceedings no.52Q/33558-1304, dtl 1.02.2025demanding for Rs. 1,42,09,465/- (Rupees One Crore Forty-Two Lakh Nine Thousand Four Hundred and Sixty Only) issued by the 4th respondent pending disposal of the Writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI M. KIRAN KUMAR Counsel forthe Respondent No.'l: SRI G. VENKATESHVARLU, CENTRAL GOW COUNSEL Counsel forthe Respondent No.2 to 4: SRI G. PAVAN KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.5 & 6: - - - - The Court made the following: ORDER ia\ HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO WRIT PETI TION No. 550 5 of 2025 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed'seeking the following relief:- "to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particulorly onc in the nature of thrit of Mandamus declaring the Respondent no 4issued Prohibitory Order dated 11'02 2025 vide Proceedings io 52Q/33558-1i0't to the Respondent no 5 and- Prohibitorv Order iated t 1.02.2025 vide Proceedings No 52Q/33558- I 304 dated I 1.02.2025 ro the Re'spondent no'6 demctnding an almount of Rs. 1 ,12,09,465 (RtLpees One Crore L orty.Two Lakh Nine Thiusand Four Hundred and Sixty Only) without giving any prior notice and hearing opportunity is illegal arbilrarv -o,irl'riolorion oJ Principles of natural justice and to se.t aside the same and consequently direcl thr Rtsgndent no.l-not lo take ttny coercive steps in procee'lings no 5 )Q/J^3^5-5-8-- I 301' (1t.11.0i.2025 and procecdings no 52Q 33558-1301' (tt.11.02.2025 demanding Jir Rs 1,12,09'165 (Rupees One Crore FortyTwo Lakh Niie I httusand Four Hundred and Sixly Only). "

2. Heard Sri Kiran Kumar, learned courr'sel for the petitioner' Sri G.Venkateswarlu, leamed Standing Counsel for respondent No'l and Sri C.Pavan Kumar, learned counsel for respondent Nos'2 to 4' 3 With the consent of learned counsel for the parties' the writ petition is being disposed of at the stage of admission' 4 Notice in respect of respondent Nos'5 and 6 is dispensed with on the ground that they are proforrna partles' 2

5. Facrs giving rise to filing of this writ petition brieflr stated are that the Petitioner is a Sociery registered uuder the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and the petitioner Society started Ramappa Engineering College, Shayampet Jagir, Huntur Road, Warangal. Respondent No.3, while exercising the powers c cnferred under the provisions o1' Section 45-A of Employees, State Insurance Act, 194g (herein after called as ..the Act,, for brevity) issued pr.oceedings No.AP/INS-Il/52-00-33 558-0 00-13041877 , dat,:d 0 :i.08.201 5, directing the petilioncr to pay an amount of Rs.5,30.gg8/_ for the period fronr 01.07.2010 to 31.03.2011. The petirioner Society has paid the said amount on 07.10.2016. Thereafter, rer;pondenl No.3 has passed another order on 12.05.2016, determining an arnount of Rs.31,85,324- for the period from 01.04.2011 to 3 j .09.201-i, without issuing any uotice to the petitioner. Aggrieved t,y the said order. petitioner filcd EIC No.47 of 2016 on the file Emprlsyss5, lnsurance Court and flhairman Industrial Tribunal_I, Hyderatrad (for -short ,the Tribunal'). On 02.11.2016, the Tribunal in LA.No.223 cf 2016, granted intelim stay, subject to the condition of the petitioner depositing an arnount of Rs.13,24,270l_. Subsequently, the said EIC No.47 of 2016 was dismissed on2g.O1 .2023. Aggrieved by the said 3 order, petitioner filed appeal vide CMA (SR) No'7329 of 2025, before this Court. Petitioner further averred that on 23.09'2016, respondent No.2 issued notice directing the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.43,71,135/-. Thereafter, respondent No.2 issued impugned prohibitory orders vide Proceedings Nos'52Q/33558-1304 on ll .02.2025, directing respondent Nos.5 and 6 to transfer an amount of Rs.1,42,09,465l-. Aggrieved by the said order, petitioner filed the present writ petition.

6. Leamed counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent No.2 without giving opportunity to the petitioner, passed the order on

12.05.2016, determining an amount of Rs.31,85,324l- for the period from 01.04.2011 to 31.09.2015 and the same is contrary to the provisions of the Act. Aggrieved by the said order petitioner hled EIC No.47 of 2016, before the Tribunal. Initially, on 02' 1 1 '2016, the Tribunal granted interim stay in I'A.No'223 of 2016, subject to condition of the petitioner depositing an amount of Fis'13,24,270/-' Pursuant to the said order, petitioner deposited the said amount' However, the Tribunal dismissed E'P.No.47 of 2016 on28'01'2023' Aggrieved by the said order, petitioner frled appeal vlde CMA (SR) No.7329 of 2025 before this Court. In the meanwhile, respondent 4 {) No.2 issued prohibitory order dated ll.O2.2O.15, clairning huge amount of Rs.1,42,09,4 65/- and the same is contrary to the provisions of the Act.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for resporrdent Nos.2 to 4 submitted that the petitioner suppressed the factum of dismissal of EIC No.47 of 201 6 in the present writ petition and also the petitioner has not stated about filing of appeal before this Court. IIe furlher submitted that the petitioner has approached this Courl with unclean hands and irc is not entitled for relief as enshrined under Article 226 of the Constirution of India.

8. Leanred Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.l also reiterated the very same submissions made by the laarned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4.

9. Havin,e considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and after perusal of the mate,rial available on record. it reveals that respondent Nos.2 to 4, while exercising the powers conferred under the provisions of the Act. detemrined the amount through orders dated 03.0g.2015 and 12.05.2016. According to the petitioner, pursuant to the orders dated 03.0g.2r115 and 5

12.05.2016, he has already deposited the determined amount and he has also deposited an amount of Rs.13,24,270l-, pursuant to the interim order granted by the Tribunal in I.A.No.223 of 2016 in EIC No.47 of 2016. According to the submissions made by the leamed counsel for the petitioner, the main EIC No.47 of 2016 was dismissed on 28.01 .2023. Aggrieved by the said order, petitioner fiIed appeal in CMA (SR) No.7926 of 2025, before this Court.

10. Taking into consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, respondents are directed not to proceed further pursuant to the prohibitory order dated 11.02.2025 issued by respondent No.5, subject to condition of petitioner depositing 50% of the amount from Rs.\,42,09,465l-, with respondent No.2, after deducting the amount, which was already deposited by the petitioner, pursuant to the orders I I dated 03.08.2015 and 12.05.2016, passed by respondent Nos.2 to 4 and order passed in I.A.No.223 of 2016 in EIC No.47 of 2016, dated

02.11.2016, within a period of four (4) weeks. The petitioner is directed to deposit 25%o of the amount out of 50% within two (2) weeks from today and on such deposit, respondents are directed to defreeze the bank account of the petitioner and remaining 25%o, within a period of two (2) weeks thereafter. In the event, if the , l 6 o petitioner fails to comply with the said condition, respondents are entitled to proceed further pursuant to the prohibitory order dated 11 .02.2025. However, it is needless to say that the peritioner is entitled to raise all the grounds which are availubre under law in pending CMA (SR) No.7329 of 2025.

11. With the above said direction, the writ petition is disposed of No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, slall stand closed. SD/.T. TIRUMALA DEVI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR' To, \ //TRUE COPYII Road, Hyderabad-500063 ot tndia, Shram Shakti Bhawan, Rafi Marq, New Delhi 110001 Foft Koad, Hyderabad-500063 ii!H ON OFFICER 1. The Secretary Ministryof Labour and Employment, The Union of lndia, Govt. 2. The Regional Director, Employees State insurance Corporation 5_9_23, Hill 3. The Deputy Director, Emproyees state rnsurance corporation 5-9-23, Hifl Fort 4. The Recovery Officer,. E_mpto-yees State lnsurance Corporation 5.9_23, Hill 5. The Branch Manager, lClCl Bank, D.No.1144, Jawahar Nagar, RTC X Roads, ^ Qnp._Lepakshi Ha"ndicrafts, ftVOLLOaO-iO 6 llu_ B:qtq,l Manager, stglg. p'a1r of tndia, H.No.1-8-56:r/1, RTC X Roads, _ gpp ljandhya Theater, Chikkadpally, Hyderabad-20. Z. 9n" CC to SRt tV KTRAN KUMAR, A'dvocate tOpUCl 8 _O-te CC to SRt G. VENKATESHVARLU, CENIRAI cOW COUNSEL 9 Qne CC to SRI G. PAVAN KUMAR, Advocate tOpUCl 10.Two CD Copies Fon Koad, Hyderabad-500063. loPUCl BN BS .\ HIGH COURT DATED:2510212025 I ORDER WP.No.5505 of 2025 CC TODAY ;r t :; l- r.c (.' -lJ Ct { '! B2 t i:B .l 2ffi :; (. .i:, ,) DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS ?6