-1- 2025:CGHC:13093 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPL No. 66 of 2023 M/s Pawan Kumar Agrawal Through- Partner Pawan Kumar Agrawal S/o Shri Bajrang Lal Agrawal, Age About-58 Years, C/o Vijush Kumar Agrawal, Main Road Naila, Ward No. 05, Agrasen Marg, Naila Police Station- Janjgir, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - Employees Provident Fund Organisation Through Central Provident Fund Commissioner, Head Office, Bhikaji Kama Place-14, New Delhi-110066, District : New Delhi, Delhi 2 - Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Employees Provident Fund Organization Regional Office Raipur Chhattisgarh, Block- D, Scheme No. 32, Indira Gandhi Vyavsayik Parisar, Pandari Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 492004 3 - Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner Employees Provident Fund Organization Regional Office Raipur Chhattisgarh Block- D, Scheme No. 32, Indira Gandhi Vyavsayik Parisar, Pandari Raipur 492004, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. S. P. Kale, Advocate For Respondents No. 2 & 3 : Mr. Ajay Dwivedi, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 19.03.2025 Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE -2- 1) Heard on admission. 2) The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1 Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call entire record in respect of petitioners' case from the office of respondent department. 10.2 Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the both orders dated 28/02/2023 (Annexure - P/1 & Annexure - P/2). 10.3 Any other relief in the circumstances of the case may also be awarded” 3) Mr. Ajay Dwivedi, learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 2 & 3 would vehemently submit that the order passed under the provisions of Section 14 B of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short, the Act, 1952), is appealable according to the provisions of Section 7 (I) of the Act, 1952. He would further submit that the petitioner may raise all available grounds before the learned appellate authority. He would contend that if any order would be passed by the learned appellate authority in favour of the petitioner, the order passed under the provisions of Section 7(Q) of the Act, 1952 would automatically become redundant. 4) At this stage, Mr. Kale would submit that a notice has been issued to the petitioner to deposit Rs. 38,67,807/- and the petitioner has been directed to appear before the authority on 03.03.2025. In the order, it is also observed that if the petitioner fails to deposit the said amount, the petitioner may be committed to the civil prison. 5) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on the -3- file. 6) Taking into consideration the submissions made by respective counsel, at this juncture, this writ petition is disposed of reserving liberty in favour of the petitioner to prefer an appeal against the order passed under the provisions of Section 14 B of the Act, 1952 within a period of 30 days along with an application for the grant of stay. 7) The appellate authority is directed to decide the application for the grant of stay within a further period of 30 days, and for the period of 60 days, no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner. 8) The appellate authority would be at liberty to decide the appeal strictly in accordance with the law. 9) With the aforesaid observation and direction, this writ petition is disposed of at the motion stage itself. 10) It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge NADIM