M/S ROYAL ENTERPRISES THROUGH ITS AUTHIRISED REPRESENTATIVE NAMELY MINKU PRASAD v. THE CENTRAL BOARD OF TRUSTEES
WPC/3220/2025 · 2025-08-21
Rajesh Kumar
Writ Petition (Civil)body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 14142 (JHR) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 14142 (JHR) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
2025:JHHC:24708
1 W.P.(C) No. 3220 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 3220 of 2025
M/s Royal Enterprises having its registered address Jagarnathpur, P.O. Nandlalpur, Kahalgaon, Dist. Bhagalpur-813222(Bihar) through its authorized representative namely Minku Prasad, aged about 38 Years, son of Late Ram Niwas Ram, resident of Dwarika Puri, Chutia, P.O. GPO, P.S. Chutia, Dist. Ranchi-834001 (Jharkhand)
….........Petitioner(s)
Vrs.
1. The Central Board of Trustees under the Employees Provident Funds & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 having its seat at Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan, Barakhamba Road, P.O., P.S. & Dist. New Delhi-110001
2. Employees Provident Fund Organisation, through the Commissioner, having its office at Bhavishya Nidhi Bhavan, Hinoo, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, Dist. Ranchi-834002(Jharkhand)
3. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II, Regional Office, Employee Provident Fund Organisation, Regional Office, Hinoo, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, Dist, Ranchi-834002(Jharkhand).
.......... Respondent(s)
…....
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
For the Petitioner : Mr. Deva Kant Rai, Advocate
Mr. Sharabhil Ahmed, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Kislaya Prasad, Advocate
04/21.08.2025 The writ petition has been filed for the following relief(s):
“(A) For quashing / setting aside the order dated 27.06.2024 passed by the learned Regional Provident Fund Commissioner- II, Ranchi, whereby and whereunder the said authority exercising the power conferred under section 14B of the Employees Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952(hereinafter to be referred as the said Act) has imposed a sum of Rs.24,50,007/- as damages by way of penalty under section 14B of the said Act. Further it has been ordered that if the aforesaid amount is not deposited and challan in support of the deposits are not sent/produced forthwith from the date of receipt of the said order then the entire amount of damages under section 14B will be recovered under section 8B to 8G of the said Act(as contained in Annexure 4). (B) For quashing/setting aside the demand notice dated
2025:JHHC:24708
2 W.P.(C) No. 3220 of 2025
27.06.2024 passed by the learned Regional Provident Fund and Commissioner-ll, Ranchi, whereby and whereunder the said authority has directed the Petitioner to deposit the quantified interest payable under section 7Q to the tune of Rs. 13,69,535/- by way of online challan through login into ECR Portal and inform accordingly to the said officer by Demand Draft in favour of Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Ranchi forthwith from the receipt of the said order failing which recovery may be made under section 8 of the Act in the manner prescribed under section 8B to 8G of the said Act (as contained in Annexure 4 part). (C) For holding and declaring that the aforesaid order and demand notice has been issued by Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II, Ranchi in complete violation of principle of natural justice and settled principle of law and as such the same are unsustainable in the eyes of law.”
2. The notification dated 14.07.2025 has been produced stating that now the appellate authority is functioning and, therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to work out his remedy in the pending appeal. 3. Needless to say, if an application for interim protection is filed, the appellate authority is supposed to entertain the same and dispose it of as early as possible. 4.
With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition is
disposed of.
5. Consequently, I.A. No. 10192 of 2025 seeking stay also stands
disposed of.
(Rajesh Kumar, J.)
A.Mohanty