Inq No. 2004 of 2801 · Andhra Pradesh High Court · 2004
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Judgment
Cause title
Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any appropriate writ, or direction, declaring the Notice NO. AP/GT/40045/P-2/ENF/COMP-III/7A/INQ/2004/2801, DT. 4-2-2004, of the 1st Respondent holding inquiry U/Sec 7-A of EPF Act as illegal, void and arbitrary, unjust and improper and consequently direct the 1st respondent not to hold any inquiry U/Sec 7-A of EPF Act. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.R.S.MURTHY SC FOR BSNL Counsel for the Respondents: MR.R.N.REDDY The Court made the following:
ORDER:
The writ petition is premature since it is filed only against the notice calling upon the petitioner to appear in the enquiry to be conducted under Section 7 of the Employee’s Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, (for short ‘the Act’). Petitioner can participate in the enquiry and establish that he is not liable to pay the provident fund amount and only on passing adverse order against him, can he avail remedies available to him in a Court of law. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ____________________ GOPAL REDDY, J ASSISTANT REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER A. October 7, 2004 MRR To: 1 The Asst. Provident Fund Commissioner, EPF Organisation, Sub-Regional Office, Guntur. 2 The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Barkathpura, Hyderabad. 3 Two C.D. Copies.
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; Employee’s Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 — s. 7.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 07 Oct 2004. The bench was A GOPAL REDDY.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.