Challa Kodanda Ram, J.

1. By invoking the Certiorari jurisdiction of this court, petitioner-M/s. Shivam Smelters (P) Limited, challenges the impugned warrant of attachment of movable property dated 03.02.2011 issued by the Recovery Officer, Employees Provident Fund Organization, first respondent, by this writ petition. The case of the petitioner is that M/s. Shivam Smelters (P) Limited, which was established under the Companies Act, 1956, is that it was engaged in the business of casting of mild steel products. Pursuant to the advertisement issued by the Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation, third respondent (hereinafter referred to as, "Corporation"), petitioner-Company participated in the auction of the property belonging to M/s. Shree Jagannath Strips limited, a company in liquidation, and became a successful bidder for a valuable consideration of Rs.86,00,000/- and thereby, the Corporation executed a sale deed in favour of the petitioner. It is the further case of the petitioner that it has nothing to do with the alleged liabilities of the erstwhile Company in liquidation i.e., M/s. Shree Jagannath Strips limited and the property of the petitioner, which was acquired through the public auction, cannot be attached under the impugned order.

2. Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 4 filed a counter affidavit and while denying the allegations made by the petitioner submits that under Section 17B of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, (for short, "the Act"), petitioner is liable for the dues payable by the defaulter.

3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner; learned counsel for the third respondent; and Sri G. Venkateswarlu, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 4.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation, third respondent, submits that as the Company in liquidation i.e., M/s. Shree Jagannath Strips Limited was declared to be a sick company under Section 85 of the SICA Act, the Board For Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) recommended the Company to be wound up and thereby this court passed winding up orders in C.P. No. 62 of 1994 by order dated 17.12.1998. At that stage the third respondent, being a secured creditor, approached this Court in Comp.A. No. 518 of 1999 seeking to liquidate the assets of the Company in liquidation, where under this Court by order dated 20.11.1999 permitted the Corporation to sell the assets through public auction, which was complied with by the Corporation. Learned counsel, supporting the case of the petitioner, also fairly submits that the issue as to whether the statutory or other dues of the properties of the defaulting company, which was sold through the public auction, would get attached to the purchaser is settled by various judgments of the Supreme Court, reported in Isha Marbles v. Bihar Electricity Board, 1995 (2) SCC 648, which was reiterated in Union of India v. SICOM Ltd., (2009) 2 SCC 121 and the latest being Rana Girders Ltd., v. Union of India, (2013) 10 SCC 746 : 2014(1) ALT 15.1 (DN SC).

5. On the other hand, Sri G. Venkateswarlu, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Employees' Provident Fund Organization, submits that by virtue of Section 11 r/w 17(B) of the Act, petitioner would be liable to make the payment as it had acquired the property on account of the transfer. Learned standing counsel by drawing specific attention to the condition imposed by the company court in Comp.A. No. 518 of 1999 would also submit that in relation to the dues of the company in liquidation, the third respondent Corporation had undertaken to comply with all the provisions prescribed under Section 529A of the Companies Act, 1956 and, as such, the petitioner would be liable to for the dues of the company in liquidation. Learned standing counsel would also contend that the original order determining the liability and warrant of the certificate issued in the year 1999 was not challenged and what is bein