Judgment : 1. This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action initiated by respondent No.1 for sale of the property of respondent No.2 for recovery of provident fund dues, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. I have heard Sri Y.N.Lohita, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri R.N.Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Employees’ Provident Fund appearing for respondent No.1. 3. In the view, this Court is proposing to take it is not necessary to issue notice to respondent No.2. The petitioner is incorporated under the provisions of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951. The petitioner appears to have advanced loans to respondent No.2, to a tune of Rs.436.95 lakhs between 1998 and 2003. On the ground that respondent No.2 committed default in payment of loan amounts, the petitioner has initiated proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, ‘the SARFAESI Act’). The petitioner pleaded that it has taken possession of fixed as well as hypothecated assets on 28.08.2012. 4. It is the further pleaded case of the petitioner that respondent No.2 has approached the Debts Recovery Tribunal (Tribunal) under the SARFAESI Act by filing S.A.No.413 of 2012 questioning the action initiated by the petitioner. On 28.09.2012, the Tribunal passed an interim order, whereunder it has directed the petitioner to defer all further proceedings, including the auction scheduled on 29.09.2012, subject to respondent No.2 depositing a sum of Rs.15.00 lakhs within four weeks and another sum of Rs.20.00 lakhs within four weeks thereafter. The Tribunal further directed that in case respondent No.2 fails to deposit the amounts as directed, the petitioner shall be at liberty to proceed further in accordance with law. 5. The petitioner averred that it has issued sale notification, dated 05.11.2012, for sale of mortgaged and hypothecated assets and that at that stage it has received notice, dated 19.12.2012, signed by respondent No.1 through the Managing Director of respondent No.2 with a copy marked to the petitioner, wherein it was informed that the proclamation of sale, dated 21.12.2012, is postponed to 24.01.2013. Feeling aggrieved by initiation of the proceedings for sale of properties of respondent No.2, the petitioner filed this writ petition. 6. Feeling aggrieved by initiation of the proceedings for sale of properties of respondent No.2, the petitioner filed this writ petition. 6. Sri Y.N.Lohita, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner has invoked the provisions of Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act and that as the provisions of SARFAESI Act are given overriding effect by Section 35 thereof over any other law to the extent it is inconsistent therewith, respondent No.1 cannot act in derogation of the rights of the petitioner under the SARFAESI Act. 7. Sri R.N.Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.1, submitted that Section 11(2) of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short, ‘the 1952 Act’) created first charge on the assets of the establishment and shall, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the provident fund dues shall be paid in priority to all other debts. Learned Standing Counsel, therefore, asserted that respondent No.1 has right to recover the dues by selling the property. 8. I have carefully considered the submissions of both the learned counsel. In my opinion, Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act and Section 11 of the 1952 Act operate in different spheres. While Section 35 of the SARFAESI Act gives overriding effect of its provisions over other provisions on law, Section 11(2) of the 1952 Act created first charge in favour of the Provident Fund Commissioner over the assets of the establishment for recovery of the dues from the employer. In view of Section 35 of the SARFAESI Act, the petitioner has a right to bring the properties to sale and the right of respondent No.1 in this regard is subservient to this extent. But there is no provision in the said Act which come into conflict with Section 11(2) of the 1952 Act. While the petitioner is entitled to exercise the right of taking measures for the sale of the properties of its debtors by claiming right of priority over other debtors, however, once the sale of the assets, movable and/or immovable is effected, by virtue of Section 11(2) of the 1952 Act, the sale proceeds must be first appropriated towards the provident fund dues. The petitioner can retain the balance amount, if any, recovered by way of such sale. 9. The petitioner can retain the balance amount, if any, recovered by way of such sale. 9. In the light of the above discussion, I am of the opinion that as the petitioner has already initiated steps for sale of the movable and immovable property of respondent No.2, respondent No.1 is not entitled to proceed with the proposed auction of the assets of respondent No.2. The petitioner is entitled to sell the assets of respondent No.2, after notice to respondent No.1, subject to the condition that the sale proceeds shall be sent to respondent No.1 to the extent the amount of its dues realised by sale of the assets. If any excess amount is realised by the petitioner from such sale, it shall be free to appropriate the same towards the dues payable by respondent No.2 to it. 10. Sri Y.N.Lohita, learned counsel for the petitioner, raised an apprehension that the petitioner may not complete the sale process within a reasonable time. Keeping in view the fact that the claim made by respondent No.1 is towards the provident fund dues of the workmen of respondent No.2, it is expedient that the sale process is completed by the petitioner in a time bound manner. 11. Accordingly, the petitioner is given six months’ time to complete the sale process. If the sale process is not completed within the said time, respondent No.1 shall be free to exercise its powers under the provisions of the 1952 Act for recovery of the dues from respondent No.2. 12. In the result, the writ petition is allowed, subject to the directions granted hereinabove. 13. As a sequel, W.P.M.P.Nos.2151 and 2152 of 2013 filed by the petitioner for interim relief are dismissed as infructuous.