Judgment Tapash Mookherjee, J. 1. The Present mandamus appeal is directed against an order passed by the learned Single Judge, in Writ Petition No. 15480 (W) 2013. By the said order learned Single Judge quashed a notice dated April, 22, 2013 issued by the Respondent No. 2 in the Writ Petition, i.e., the Appellant No. 1 in this appeal upon the Respondent No.1/company in this appeal. 2. The facts leading to the present litigations, in short, are as follows:- 3. One Bishwamata Cold Storage Pvt Ltd had been running a business of Cold Storage. The company availed of loans of huge amount from West Bengal Financial Corporation by creating mortgage over the land, plants and machineries and other assets, by deposit of title deeds. Subsequently, the said company failed to repay those loans for which, the lender, i.e., the West Bengal Financial Corporation exercised their legal rights for the recovery of loan amount and during such process took over the possession of the mortgaged land and other hypothecated assets of the borrower company. Subsequently, the financial corporation put the aforesaid immovable and movable properties, in auction according, to law and in that auction M/s. Biswamata Heemghar Pvt Ltd, i.e., the Respondent No. 1 in this appeal purchased those properties, put in auction, and became the owner thereof. Now, it was the view of the Appellant that the purchase of the properties in question by the present Respondent No. 1 from the West Bengal Financial Corporation was a sham transaction and the Respondent No. 1/company has been continuing the business of Biswamata Cold Storage Pvt Ltd with all its rights and statutory liabilities. The Appellant authority, therefore, issued several notices upon the Respondent No. 1/company and thereby claimed the payment of all the statutory dues of the previous company under the provisions in The Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous provisions Act, 1952. 4. In reply, to all the aforesaid notices by the Appellant the Respondent No. 1 informed that the Respondent No. 1/company had been incorporated on 17th June, 2010 only and that they had purchased the assets of the previous company in auction and hence they had no liability to clear any statutory liability under The Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 of the previous company, if any. It had been further pleaded by the Respondent No. 1/company that it was not covered under any provision of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and so it had no independent liability also under the aforesaid Act. 5. The Appellant not being impressed by the aforesaid pleas of the Respondent No. 1/company finally issued a ‘show cause’ notice dated 22.04.2013 upon the Respondent No. 1/company and thereby directed the Respondent No. 1/Company to submit statutory monthly and annual returns and remittance of P.F. and allied dues since March, 2009 to January, 2013of the Biswamata Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. The Respondent No. 1/company has challenged the said notice in the present Writ Petition being No. 15480 (W) 2013. The parties appeared in the Writ Court and pleaded their respective cases and after hearing the parties and considering the relevant materials produced, the learned Single Judge, came to the conclusion that the ‘show cause’ notice in question, issued by the present Appellant was bad in law and hence learned Single Judge quashed and set aside the ‘show cause’ notice in question. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with such decision, the Employees’ Provident Funds authorities filed the present appeal. 6. Mr. Prasad, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant has argued that M/s. Biswamata Heemghar Private Limited the Respondent No. 1/company in this appeal is carrying on the same business which had been carried on previously by Biswamata Cold Storage Private Limited and the change of name is nothing but a camouflage to avoid the statutory liabilities under The Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. He has further argued that Section 13 of the aforesaid Act empowers the E.P.F. authorities to lift the corporate veil and to make enquiries on the point whether the Respondent No. 1/company is complying with the mandatory provisions provided in the aforesaid Act and as such the impugned notice to ‘show cause’ dated 22.04.2013 is quite a valid notice and hence the learned Single Judge was not justified to quash such notice. 7. On the other hand, Mr. Bhowmick, learned Advocate for the writ petitioner/respondent No.1 has argued that the previous company, i.e., Biswamata Cold Storage Pvt Ltd is still carrying on their business and so the previous company is liable to clear all the statutory liabilities. 7. On the other hand, Mr. Bhowmick, learned Advocate for the writ petitioner/respondent No.1 has argued that the previous company, i.e., Biswamata Cold Storage Pvt Ltd is still carrying on their business and so the previous company is liable to clear all the statutory liabilities. He has further argued that the present Respondent has acquired only some of the assets of the previous company by purchase from the West Bengal Financial Corporation in an auction and that by such purchase the Respondent No. 1/company is under no obligation to clear the liabilities of the previous company, if any, under the E.P.F. Act. 8. Having perused the provision in Section 13 of The Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous provisions Act, 1952 we are of the view that Section 13 of the aforesaid Act has two parts. The first part of the provision authorises E.P.F. authorities to conduct enquiries to ascertain whether or not the provisions in the aforesaid Act is applicable to any establishment and the second part of the Section prescribes the follow up actions to be taken if after such enquiry it is found that the establishment in question is covered by the aforesaid Act. 9. From the impugned ‘show cause’ notice dated 22.04.2013 it is found that the authority has already taken up a view that the Respondent No. 1/company having acquired the assets of the previous company is also responsible for the statutory liabilities of the previous company. It is not clear whether there was any valid enquiry conducted to ascertain the applicability of the Act over the Respondent company and by the impugned ‘show cause’ notice dated 22.04.2013 P.F authority has straightforward asked the Respondent No. 1/company for the compliance of the provisions in the Act. The impugned ‘show cause’ notice clearly suggests that the authority has already prejudged the issue which is not permissible in law. The impugned ‘show cause’ notice is not, therefore, a valid notice according to law. So the learned Single Judge has rightly quashed it. In the circumstances we find no reason to interfere with the decision of the learned Single Judge. However, the E.P.F. authority is given the liberty to conduct a fresh enquiry into the matter strictly according to law and in the light of the observation hereinbefore. The appeal are accordingly dismissed. 10. So the learned Single Judge has rightly quashed it. In the circumstances we find no reason to interfere with the decision of the learned Single Judge. However, the E.P.F. authority is given the liberty to conduct a fresh enquiry into the matter strictly according to law and in the light of the observation hereinbefore. The appeal are accordingly dismissed. 10. In view of the disposal of the appeal itself no further order need be passed in the connected stay application. The application is thus disposed of. 11. Urgent certified photocopy of this judgment, if applied for, be supplied to the learned Advocates for the parties upon compliance of all formalities. Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, J. : I agree.