1 APHC010185662026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] THURSDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 9970/2026 Between: 1. Andhra pradesh corporation for outsourced services, ntr administrative block, 2nd floor, p.n.bus stand, vijayawada, krishna district. Rep. By its managing director., pin code no.520013 ...PETITIONER AND 1. Employees provident fund organization, ministry of labour and employment, government of india, bhabishyanidhi bhavan, bhaikaiji, cama place, new delhi-110060 rep. By its secretary 2. The Regional Provident Fund Commissionerii/Ioic, District Office, Rtc House, 3rd Floor Ntr Administrative Block, P.N.Bus Stand, Vijayawada, Krishna District -520013. ...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 writ of mandamus are any other appropriate writ direction Order of the 2nd respondent Vide NO. AP/DO /VJA/GRGNT2128999000/ZONE-814/2026 DT.09.03.2026.even though petitioner Corporation clarified that the Salaries were directly Dispensed by the DDO of Director of school Education, AP Model schools as illegal arbitrary and set aside the same and consequently direct the Respondent 2 not to insist for payment of EPF Contributions of the Out Source employees of AP Model school from Director of School Education AP Model Schools forthwith and to pass 2 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 please to stay all the further proceeding in pursuant of the orders of the 2nd respondent passed in vide letter No.AP/DOV/VJA/GRGNT2128999000/ZONE-814/2026/ dated 09-03-2026 Pending disposal of the writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K BHEEMA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. T BALAJI(SC FOR EPFO) 2. The Court made the following order: The case of the petitioner is that, the petitioner corporation is a government non-profit organization and catering employees under organizations in Andhra Pradesh including Government of India sponsored programs. After incorporation of the petitioner corporation as a matter of the policy, all the outsourced employees working in the respective departments engaged in AP model schools were migrated/transferred to the petitioner’s corporation in the month of July, 2020. Even though they are migrated to the petitioner’s corporation, the salaries of the said employees are not paid by the petitioner’s corporation(APCOS) but were disbursed by the respective DDO upto 20th September, 2020 and for the month of June, 2021 as well. Subsequently, salary payments were routed to petitioner’s corporation and EPF contributions thus received have been duly remitted in accordance with the prescribed rules. 3 2. It is the further case of the petitioner that, 2nd respondent issued a letter dated 04.09.2024 directing the petitioner’s corporation to submit the complete list of all 656 outsourcing employees with their respective UAN details and details of remuneration pertaining to period 01.06.2020 to 20.09.2020 and 01.06.2021 to 20.07.2021. To the said letter, the petitioner has addressed a letter dated 09.09.2024 to the Director of School Education AP Model school to provide information with regard to details of the remuneration and UAN details and subsequently addressed a letter to the 2nd respondent dated 10.09.2024 stating that it will furnish the details as and when the data is received from the concerned department. While so, the 2nd respondent again issued show cause notice dated 04.02.2025 for non-compliance/default in payment of statutory EPF dues in respect of employees engaged in AP model school. To the said show cause notice, the petitioner submitted explanation stating that the monthly remunerations for outsourcing employees including EF contributions were not claimed through the petitioner’s corporation (APCOS) for the said period and it is not liable for any EPF contribution payment during those periods, as the salaries were not disbursed through APCOS but were paid directly by the respective DDO. 3. The further case of the petitioner is that, the 2nd respondent again issued another show cause notice dated 12.03.2025 to which the petitioner had issued suitable explanation on 19.03.2025. The Director of School Education addressed a letter dated 25.04.2025 to the petitioner corporation that the remuneration of the outsourcing staff working in AP model schools for 4 the said period was paid directly to them by DDO’s and EPF contributions of the said period have not been deducted and also furnished details of the total payment of salaries of the outsourced employees working in the AP Model schools. The 2nd respondent having not satisfied with the information furnished from time to time, insisting the petitioner corporation for remittance of EPF contributions even though it was clarified that the salaries of the said period were directly paid without routing through the petitioner’s corporation (APCOS). Again on 09.03.2026, the 2nd respondent has issued another show cause notice vide No.AP/DO/VJA/GRGNT2128999000/ZONE-814/2026 for non-remittance of EPF contributions. Assailing the said notice issued by the 2nd respondent dated 09.03.2026, the present writ petition is filed. 4. Heard Sri K.Bheema Rao learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri T.Balaji, learned Standing counsel for Employees Provident Fund Organization (EPFO). 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner in elaboration to what has been stated in the affidavit contended that, the respondent authorities have issued several show cause notices to which the petitioner has submitted explanations but without passing orders and without even verifying the said explanations, the respondent authorities issued impugned notice which is unsustainable. He further submitted that, though the Director of School Education addressed a letter dated 25.04.2025 to the affect that the salaries are directly paid by the respective DDO’s, without even considering the same, the impugned notice was issued. As such, prayed to pass appropriate orders in that regard. 5 6. On the other hand, learned standing counsel for the respondents submitted that, the petitioner cannot question a show cause notice in a writ petition and the writ petition is not maintainable. He further submitted that, the petitioner has not submitted any explanation to the impugned show cause notice and if at all any explanation is submitted, the authorities will consider and pass orders on the same. Accordingly prayed to pass appropriate orders in that regard. 7. Perused the record and considered the submissions of both the learned counsel. 8. Questioning the show cause notice issued by the 2nd respondent vide No.AP/DO/VJA/GRGNT2128999000/ZONE-814/2026 dated 09.03.2026, the present writ petition is filed. The Apex court in Union of India v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana 1 has held that ordinarily no writ lies against a show cause notice. The reason is that a mere show-cause notice does not give rise to any cause of action, because it does not amount to an adverse order affecting the rights of any party unless the same has been issued by a person having no jurisdiction to do so. Writ jurisdiction is discretionary jurisdiction and hence such discretion under Article 226 should not ordinarily be exercised by quashing a show-cause notice. No doubt, in some very rare and exceptional cases the High Court can quash a show cause notice, if it is found to be wholly without jurisdiction or for some other reason it is wholly illegal (emphasis supplied). However, ordinarily the High Court should not interfere in 1 (2006) 12 SCC 28 6 such a matter. No doubt, in the present case, several show cause notices were issued for which the petitioner has submitted explanation. However, no reasons are forthcoming as to why the authorities have not passed any orders on those explanations. 9. In view of the same, without going into merits and demerits of the case, this court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition with the following directions: (a) The petitioner is at liberty to submit a detailed explanation along with supporting material to the 2nd respondent within two(02) weeks from today. (b) On receipt of the same, the 2nd respondent is directed to pass orders on the same, by providing an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, if required in accordance with law. It is needless to observe that, the 2nd respondent shall consider the proceedings of the Director of School education dated 25.04.2025. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI BRS