JUDGMENT : (Ravi Cheemalapati, J.) Challenging the orders dated 25.03.2014 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.29185 of 2011; the writ petitioner filed this writ appeal. 2. Through the orders impugned in this writ appeal, the writ petition filed to declare the action of respondent nos. 3 & 4 in selling the property of the petitioner company to respondent no.6 as illegal and void and to direct respondent no.5 to cancel the Registration Endorsement viz., Document No.3, Book No.1, year 2011, dated 05.09.2011; was disposed of, rejecting the relief sought by the petitioner with a direction to the EPFO to approach BIFR duly intimating the sale of petitioner company assets, seek its ratification for appropriation of the sale proceeds towards PF dues of petitioner company and with a further direction to BIFR to undertake required formalities to ratify the action of EPFO. 3. The facts that are necessary for the purpose of determination of the issue involved in this writ appeal, in brief, are as follows: (a) Since the petitioner company went into losses, the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) initiated proceedings in case No.95/95 and by order dated 21.06.2000 recommended for winding up of the company in accordance with Section 20 (1) of the Sick Industrial companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (‘SICA’). The company appeal No.172 of 2000 preferred by the petitioner was dismissed on 12.01.2001 and the writ petition filed challenging the said order was dismissed for non-prosecution on 19.03.2009. So far no orders winding up the petitioner company as recommended by BIFR were passed. (b) Consequent to failure of Employees Provident Fund contribution of its employees, which was determined at Rs.60,21,000/- inclusive of interest and damages; the property of the petitioner company in an extent of Ac.12- 31 cents was attached vide orders dated 28.03.2007 and an extent of Ac.4-89 cents out of the land attached was sold in open auction, wherein respondent no.6 stood as highest bidder at Rs.64,50,000/- and later the sale was confirmed, sale certificate was issued to respondent no.6 and the same was registered by respondent no.5 on 05.09.2011. (c) Thereafter, the petitioner filed writ petition. (c) Thereafter, the petitioner filed writ petition. (d) The learned single Judge, though held that there was infraction of the procedure contemplated under Section 20(4) of the SICA; however considering the circumstances such as, the petitioner failed to demonstrate as to how the auction conducted by BIFR in violation of Section 20(4) of the SICA has invaded judicially enforceable right vested in him; Section 11 of the Employees Provident Fund Act (‘EPF Act’) and Section 530(1) of the Companies Act envisage that the amount due towards contribution to the provident fund shall have precedence over the other debts and shall be deemed to be the first charge on the assets of the establishment; further upsetting the sale held and confirmed in the year 2011 at this length of time would adversely affect the interest of the bonafide purchaser, who had parted with huge sum towards sale price; and as there is no record to show that liabilities of petitioner company towards Provident Fund Contributions were placed before BIFR and that Employees Provident Fund Organization (FPFO) was appraised that sale of assets of the company can be conducted by BIFR alone in view of Section 20(4) of SICA; disposed of the writ petition as indicated in para-2 of this judgment. Assailing the same this writ appeal has been preferred by the liquidator representing the writ petitioner company. 4. Heard Sri P.Kamalakar, learned counsel for the appellant, and Sri T.Balaji, learned Standing Counsel for Employees Provident Fund. 5. Assailing the same this writ appeal has been preferred by the liquidator representing the writ petitioner company. 4. Heard Sri P.Kamalakar, learned counsel for the appellant, and Sri T.Balaji, learned Standing Counsel for Employees Provident Fund. 5. Sri P.Kamalakar, learned counsel, while reiterating the contents of the writ affidavit and grounds of Writ Appeal, would further contend that since Provident Fund Commissioner was added as respondent no.11 before BIFR and liability of the petitioner company towards PF contributions was part of the proceedings; the observations of the learned single Judge in that regard are unsustainable; that the learned single Judge having found that sale was held in violation of section 20(4) of the SICA, ought to have set aside the sale, instead of directing the EPF authorities to approach BIFR for ratification of the sale; that the learned single Judge misconstrued the discretionary and equitable jurisdiction exercisable by the Court and erred in not setting aside the sale, which was held in utter infraction of a statutory provision, since the same would amount to perpetuating illegality; that the learned single judge erred in observing that the amount due towards Provident Fund contributions being Rs.60,21,000/- is an admitted position, since the said observation is contrary to the amount mentioned in proclamation of sale at Rs.19,30,694/-; that the learned single Judge went wrong in not setting aside the sale. Accordingly, prayed to allow the writ petition setting aside the orders passed by the learned single judge and consequently allow the writ petition. 6. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for Employees Provident Fund, in elaboration to the pleadings would contend that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in catena of decisions held that amount due towards Provident Fund contributions shall have precedence over all other dues and the EPFO empowered by Section 8(f) of the Employees Provident Fund Act, after giving sufficient opportunity to the petitioner to make good the amount due and after following due procedure contemplated under law, conducted auction for realization of the amount due towards Provident Fund contributions and therefore, there is neither illegality nor procedural impropriety in conducting sale. The learned Standing Counsel would further contend that the learned single Judge considered the aspects in proper perspective and came to a right conclusion in rejecting the claim made by the petitioner for setting aside the sale, holding that infraction in conducting sale cannot be made a ground to set aside the sale confirmed in the year 2011. There are no valid grounds for setting aside the order impugned in this writ appeal. The writ appeal being meritless deserves dismissal. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the writ appeal. 7. Perused the material available on record and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for parties. 8. Admittedly, BIFR recommended that the petitioner company shall be wound up in accordance with Section 29(1) of SICA; the appeal preferred by the petitioner company against the same was dismissed and so far no orders are passed winding up the petitioner company as per recommendation of BIFR. It is also not in dispute that for realization of arrears of Provident Fund, the EPFO, attached the assets of the petitioner company and sold some extent of the land out of the total extent attached, wherein respondent no.6 stood as highest bidder and accordingly sale was confirmed, sale certificate was issued and the same was registered. 9. The petitioner is attacking the correctness of the orders passed by the learned single Judge on two counts, namely, the impugned orders perpetuated the illegality committed by EPFO in conducting sale in contravention of Section 20(4) of SICA and that the learned single Judge erred in holding that admitted arrears of PF subscriptions being Rs.60,21,000/-, ignoring the fact that sale proclamation mentions the arrears of PF as Rs.19,30,694/-. 10. Section 20(4) of SICA, envisages that the Board may sell the assets of the sick industrial company in such manner as it may deem fit. 11. Therefore, as per section 20(4) of SICA, the BIFR alone is entitled to deal with the properties of sick industrial company during the interregnum period between the date of recommendation by BIFR to wind up a sick industrial company and the date of order of winding up. In the instant case, since no orders are passed winding up the petitioner company, BIFR alone is entitled to sell the properties of the petitioner company. 12. Section 11 (2) of the Employees Provident Funds Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 reads thus: “11. In the instant case, since no orders are passed winding up the petitioner company, BIFR alone is entitled to sell the properties of the petitioner company. 12. Section 11 (2) of the Employees Provident Funds Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 reads thus: “11. Priority of payment of contributions over other debts: (1) xxxxxxxxxxxx (2) without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (1), if any amount is due from an employer, (whether in respect of the employee’s contribution (deducted from the wages of the employer) or the employer’s contribution), the amount so due shall be deemed to be the first charge on the assets of the establishment, and shall, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, be paid in priority to all other debts.” 13. In Employees Provident Fund Commissioner vs. Official, . (2011)10 SCC 727 Liquidator of Esskay Pharmaceuticals Limited, referred to and relied on in the order under appeal, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that in view of Section 11 of Employees Provident Fund Act and Sections 529, 529-A and 530 of the Companies Act, the entire amount of arrears of provident fund dues shall be paid in priority to all other debts. 14. As per Section 20(4) of the SICA, the Board after conducting sale of properties of the company wound up, shall forward the sale proceeds to the High Court for orders for distribution in accordance with the provisions of Section 529A and other provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. 15. In the instant case, the EPFO had conducted sale of the properties of the company instead of approaching BIFR. The learned single Judge also took note of the said aspect and held that there is an infraction in conducting sale and as per section 20(4) of SICA, the EPFO ought to have approached BIFR to recover PF dues from the sick company. However, the learned single Judge holding that the petitioner failed to establish as to how violation of the procedure contemplated under Section 20(4) had invaded judicially enforceable right vested in it, and since the petitioner is a wrong doer, a writ cannot be issued at the instance of such person, rejected the claim made by the petitioner for setting aside the sale. 16. 16. Since the amount due towards Provident Fund Contributions shall be deemed to be the first charge on the assets of the establishment and since the said amount shall be paid in preference to all the other debts due by the wound up company; even if the BIFR conducts auction of the assets of the company under Section 20(4) of SICA and forward the sale proceeds to the High Court for orders for distribution; then also the High Court would be left with no other option, except to clear the amount due towards the Provident Fund Contributions of employees of the petitioner entity. Thus, the infraction occurred in selling out the property by EPFO cannot be a ground to set aside the sale as sought to be contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The learned single Judge had scanned the facts and concomitant circumstances of the case including passage of time since the date of confirmation of sale and came to a right conclusion in rejecting the claim made by the petitioner. 17. Regarding the other contention as to the actual amount due by the petitioner towards Provident Fund Contributions is concerned, though proclamation of sale dated 14.09.2010 specifies that a sum of Rs.19,30,694/-, but the same in unambiguous terms states that the said sum of Rs.19,30,964/- is recoverable together with interest in accordance with Section 7Q of the Employees’ Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 for the period commencing immediately after the said date and the cost, charges and expenses of the proceedings for the recovery thereof. Therefore, the contention that a sum of Rs.19,30,964/- is only due is liable to be rejected. Consequently, the other contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that sale of part of Ac.4.89 cents would have fetched the sale proclamation amount must also fail. It is not at all the contention of the petitioner that the property was undersold or had BIFR conducted sale, the property would have been sold for higher price. Thus, as rightly held by the learned single Judge, the petitioner failed to demonstrate the prejudice caused to him due to infraction committed in sale of the property. 18. It is not at all the contention of the petitioner that the property was undersold or had BIFR conducted sale, the property would have been sold for higher price. Thus, as rightly held by the learned single Judge, the petitioner failed to demonstrate the prejudice caused to him due to infraction committed in sale of the property. 18. In view of the above, the learned single Judge, having considered the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, had rightly held that mere infraction of statutory provision would not be a ground to issue writ, since the petitioner had failed to establish as to how violation of the said statutory provision infringed the judicially enforceable right vested in it. There are no grounds warranting interference with the orders impugned in this writ appeal.This writ appeal being meritless deserves dismissal. 19. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.