APHC010522162011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3459] TUESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT PETITION NO: 19641/2011 Between: 1. M/S.OM SAI PROFESSIONAL DETECTIVE &, SECURITY SERVICES PVT. LTD. SURESH NAGAR, KAKINADA, REP.BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR MR. PILLI PHANI RAJ ...PETITIONER AND 1. EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION, 5TH LANE, KRISHNA NAGAR, GUNTUR -522006 REP.BY ITS REGIONAL PF COMMISSIONER, GUNTUR DISTRICT 2. EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SCOPE MINAR, CORE-II 4TH FLOOR, LAXMINAGAR DISTRICT NEW DELHI- 110092 ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a suitable writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of certiorari and quash and set aside the order passed by the 2nd respondent in ATA No.766(1) of 2008 dated 28.10.2010 and the order passed in the review application dated 13.04.2011 in the interest of justice and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2011(WVMP 4206 OF 2011 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to 2 JS,J W.P.No.19641/2011 vacate the interim stay order granted on 13.7.2011 in W.P.M.P. No. 23748/2011 in W.P. No. 19641/2011 and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2011(WPMP 23748 OF 2011 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased stay of all further proceedings including recovery of the disputed amount of P.F. Contributions, in pursuance to the order of the 2nd respondent in ATA No.766 (1) of 2008 dated 28.10.2010 pending disposal of the w.p. and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. C NIRANJAN RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. RAVINDRA YANAMANDRA 3 JS,J W.P.No.19641/2011 The Court made the following ORDER: No representation for the petitioner. On the earlier occasion also i.e., on 11.08.2025, there was no representation for the petitioner, hence, the matter was directed to be listed on 01.09.2025, under the caption “for dismissal”. On 01.09.2025, there was no representation on behalf of both the learned counsel. Hence the matter was directed to be listed today. Even today there is no representation for the petitioner. It appears that the petitioner is not interested to prosecute the case. Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed as non-prosecution. No order as to costs. Interim order granted earlier, if any, shall stand vacated. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________________ JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM Dated: 16.09.2025 KAS