APHC010224522026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3330] WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 11379/2026 BETWEEN: 1. SESHAIAH NATHANI, S/O. LATE HANUMAIAH, AGED 71 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, R/O. H. NO. 74-14-65/2, MEGA TOWNSHIP, PATAMATA, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ...PETITIONER AND 1. EMPLOYEE PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION, REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER, BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVAN, 3RD LANE, KRISHNA NAGAR, GUNTUR, ANDHRA PRADESH STATE - 522206 2. THE ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION, BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVAN, 3RD LANE, KRISHNA NAGAR, GUNTUR, ANDHRA PRADESH STKE - 522206 3. THE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION, BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVAN, 3RD LANE, KRISHNA NAGAR, GUNTUR, ANDHRA PRADESH STATE - 522206 4. THE RECOVERY OFFICER AND REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONERLL, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION, DISTRICT OFFICE, RTC HOUSE, 3RD FLOOR, NTR ADMN. BLOCK, PNBS, VIJAYAWADA 520C ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ...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 pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more 2 particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ (i) declare the orders passed in I.A. No. 1 and 2 of 2026 in EPF Appeal No. 15 of 2026, dated 27-3-2026 on the file of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Hyderabad as illegal, arbitrary and unjust and consequently set aside the same (ii) declare the Office Order No. AP/RO/ GIST/COMP-I/K-II/49407/7-A Order/2015/2111, dated 18-2-2016 (iii) Review Order No. AP/RO/ GNT/COMP-I/K-II/49407/7B Review/2016/88, dated 7/15-4-2016 (iv) Notice No. AP/RO/GNT/ RECY/49407 (Kst)/CP-25/ 2016/982, dated 12- 7-2017 (v) Notice No. AP/DOA/JA/ 813/49407/Recovery/ 2026/ 5742, dated 19-2-2026, issued by the Respondents Nos. 2 to 4 is as illegal and arbitrary and consequently set aside the said proceedings and (vi) consequently declare that the Petitioner is not liable to pay any amounts determined by the Respondents in the impugned proceedings pass IA NO: 1 OF 2026 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 pleased to suspend the orders passed in (i) I.A. No. 1 & 2 of 2026 in EPF Appeal No. 15 of 2026, dated 27-03-2026 on the file of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Hyderabad; (ii) Office Order No. AP/RO/ GNT/COMP-I/K-II/49407/7-A Order/2015/2111, dated 18-02-2016 (iii) Review Order No. AP/RO/ GNT/COMP-I/K-II/49407/7B Review/2016/ 88, dated 7/15-04-2016 (iv) Notice No. AP/RO/GNT/ RECY/49407 (Kst)/ CP-25/2016/982, dated 12-07-2017 (v) Notice No. AP/DOA/JA/ 813/ 49407/Recovery/2026/5742, dated 19-02-2026, issued by the Respondents Nos. 2 to 4, pending disposal of the above writ petition and to pass IA NO: 2 OF 2026 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 May be pleased to permit the petitioner to amend the prayer as to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ (i) declare the orders passed in I.A. No. 1 and 2 of 2026 in EPF Appeal No. 15 of 2026 and its consequential Dismissal of EPF Appeal No. 15 of 2026 dated 27-3- 2026 on the file of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Hyderabad illegal, arbitrary and unjust and consequently set aside the same; (ii) declare the Office Order No. AP/RO/ GNT/COMP-I/K-II/49407/7-A Order/2015/2111, dated 18-2-2016 (iii) 3 Review Order No. AP/RO/ GNT/COMP-I/K-II/49407/7B Review/2016/88, dated 7/15-4-2016 (iv) Notice No. AP/RO/GNT/ RECY/49407 (Kst)/CP-25/ 2016/982, dated 12-7-2017 (V) Notice No. AP/DOA/JA/ 813/49407/Recovery/ 2026/ 5742, dated 19.02.2026, issued by the Respondents Nos. 2 to 4 is as illegal and arbitrary and consequently set aside the said proceedings and (vi) consequently declare that the Petitioner is not liable to any amounts determined by the Respondents in the impugned proceedings and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deems fit just and proper in the circumstances of the as pay case in the place of, to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ (i) declare the orders passed in I.A. No. 1 and 2 of 2026 in EPF Appeal No. 15 of 2026, dated 27.03.2026 on the file of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Hyderabad as illegal, arbitrary and unjust and consequently set aside the same; (ii) declare the Office Order No. AP/RO/ GNT/COMP-I/K-II/49407/7-A Order/2015/2111, dated 18-2- 2016 (iii) Review Order No. AP/RO/ GNT/COMP-I/K-II/49407/7B Review/2016/88, dated 7/15.04.2016 (iv) Notice No. AP/RO/GNT/ RECY/49407 (Kst)/CP-25/ 2016/982, dated 12-7-2017 (v) Notice No. AP/DOA/JA/ 813/49407/Recovery/ 2026/ 5742, dated 19.02.2026, issued by the Respondents Nos. 2 to 4 is as illegal and arbitrary and consequently set aside the said proceedings and (vi) consequently declare that the Petitioner is not liable to pay any amounts determined by the Respondents in the impugned proceedings and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. J U M V PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. 4 The Court made the following ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed questioning the orders passed in I.A.Nos.1 & 2 of 2026 in EPF appeal No.15 of 2026, dated 27.03.2026 on the file of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Hyderabad. 2. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition it is asserted that the writ petitioner has filed an application for review under Section 7-B in proforma under paragraph No.79-A under the provisions of the Employee Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for hereafter refer as “Act”) challenging the order under Section 8 of the Act. The said review application was dismissed by the second respondent vide order dated 07.04.2016 determining the liability of the petitioner as Rs.5,17,640/- (Rupees Five Lakhs seventeen thousand six hundred and forty only) which is the outstanding amount of the assessed amount affirming the order under Section 7-I of the Act, the said order was under challenge in W.P. No.24593 of 2017. The said Writ Petition was disposed by a coordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court following the order in W.P. No.300077 of 2021 dated 22.12.2021. 5 3. A coordinate Bench of this Court while addressing the writ petition WP No.30077 of 2021 dated 22.12.2021, highlighted in an excerpt from the order that the petitioner is permitted to file a statutory appeal under Section 7(A) of the Act before the Appellate Authority within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order and if any such appeal is filed before the Appellate Authority, the same be considered and appropriate orders be passed strictly in accordance with law on merits. In addition, the Petitioner was directed to deposit half of the amount covered by the order passed by the respondent authorities under Section 7(A) of the Act, as a condition precedent for entertaining such appeal.” 4. Upon reviewing the order, it is clear that the writ petitioner was directed to pursue the statutory appeal under Section 7-A of the Act within the stipulated two week time and to deposit 50% of the assessed amount. 5. In the case on hand, the order of the 2nd respondent, in No AP/ RO/ GNT/ COMPI / KII / 49407 / 7B Review/2016/88 vide order 07.04.2016 dated in confirming the order as assessed in AP/RO/GNT/COMPI/KII/49407/7A Order/2015/2111 dated 18.02.2016 was challenged in Writ Petition 24593 of 2017. The said writ petition 6 was disposed of in terms of the order in W.P. No. 30077 of 2021. As per the order in W.P. No. 30077 of 2021 dated 22.12.2021 pursue the statutory appeal under Section 7-A of the Act within the stipulated two week time and to deposit 50% of the assessed amount. 6. However, as directed by this court the writ petitioner has preferred the statutory appeal under Section 7-A of the Act before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court at, Hyderabad beyond the time granted i.e., two weeks. The appellate authority has rejected the appeal asserting that appeal filed after the two weeks deadline granted by this Hon’ble Court in W.P. Not 24593 of 2017 vide order dated 27.03.2026 in I.A. No. 1 & 2 of 2026 had expired, consequently dismissed the E.P.F. Appeal 15 of 2026. 7. The order in I.A. No. 1 & 2 of 2026 and consequently dismissal of the E.P.F. Appeal 15 of 2026 vide order dated 27.03.2026 on the file of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court at Hyderabad, has been challenged in the present writ petition, on the ground that while disposing the writ petition 24593 of 2017, the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity of hearing and it was disposed basing on the argument of the respondents counsel, hence the order in W.P. No. 24593 of 2017, is in violation of principle of natural 7 justice, hence voiced that a writ petition is maintainable under Article 226 Constitution of India before this Court, hence prayed to set aside the impugned order dated 27.03.2026 of the Tribunal-cum-Labour Court and prayed to permit the petitioner to contest the appeal on merits. And it is further contended that the very initiation of the proceedings under the Act is not maintainable after 01.11.2012 and the order dated 18.02.2016 is contrary to the provisions of the Act, on this ground also it is prayed to set aside the impugned order. 8. The petitioner herein ought to have been filed an application for extension of time in WP No.24593 of 2017 or pursued an appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order in WP No.24593 of 2017 dated 21.11.2025 when the petitioner believed that the petitioner had been a lack of opportunity for a hearing in WP No.24593 of 2017. Furthermore, the petitioner has made the order final and he preferred a statutory appeal as mandated by this Court in WP No.24593 of 2017, dated 21.11.2025 9. The Court has specifically queried to the counsel for the writ petitioner regarding the appropriateness in filing writ of mandamus rather than writ of Certiorari against the order in No AP/ RO/ GNT/ COMPI / KII / 49407 / 7B Review/2016/88 vide order 07.04.2016, on the 8 file of Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court at Hyderabad. However, no satisfactory answer was forthcoming from the petitioner’s counsel. 10. A writ of mandamus will be issued where the government or a public authority has failed to exercise or has wrongly exercised the discretion conferred upon it by a statute or a rule or a policy decision of the government or has exercised such discretion mala fide or on irrelevant considerations or by ignoring the relevant considerations or given directions to to perform in a proper and lawful manner of the discretion conferred upon the government or a public authority. 11. That is not the issue raised in the present Writ Petition. The petitioner herein filed the writ petition belatedly contrary to the direction in W.P. No 24593 of 2017 dated 21.11.2025. Where a coordinate bench of this Court directed the writ petitioner to file the statutory appeal under Section 7-A of the Act within two weeks from date of receipt of the order, the petitioner has filed the statutory appeal after the deadline imposed by this Court, which restricts this Court from extending the limitation period for filing a statutory appeal established by another judge’s order. Instead of seeking an extension of time, the petitioner initiated this writ petition. 9 12. The statutory appeal was rejected on the sole ground that the appeal was preferred beyond the deadline granted by this Court in W.P. No. 24593 of 2017 dt.21.11.2025. 13. Hence, this court see no reasons to interfere with the impugned order accordingly the writ petition stands dismissed with costs of Rs.3,000/- payable to the A.P. High Court Advocates Clerks Association Corpus Fund within a period of 4 (four weeks) from date of receipt of the order. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. __________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Date: 06.05.2026 RMD 260 10 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.11379 OF 2026 Date: 06.05.2026 RMD