-1- 2025:CGHC:1712 NAFR HIGH COURT of CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPL No. 11 of 2025 M/s. Best Security Services, Through: Its Proprietor Kuldeep Chaturvedi S/o Shri Rajkishore Chaturvedi Aged About 41 Years Having office At Flat No. 30 Third Floor Usha Kiran Parisar Behind Jagriti School Bhatagaon Raipur (C.G.). --- Petitioner versus 1- Employees Provident Fund Organization, Ministry of Labour And Employment Regional office At Pandri Raipur (C.G.) Through Its Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Having office At Block - D Scheme - 32 Indira Gandi Commercial Complex Pandri Raipur (C.G.). 2- Enforcement officer Employees Provident Fund Organization Ministry of Labour And Employment Regional office At Block - D Scheme 32, Indira Gandhi Commercial Complex Pandri Raipur (C.G.). --- Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Shishir Dixit, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Sunil Pillai, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 10.01.2025 1) The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE -2- “10.1. That, this Hon’ble Court be pleased to quash the inspection report dated 18.12.2024 (Annexure P/1) issued by the responded No.2 and submitted in proceedings of Diary No. 170/2021 initiated under Section 7A of EPF & MP Act, 1952, in the interest of justice. 10.2. Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit be granted.” 2) Mr. Shishir Dixit, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that on a complaint of an NGO, a proceeding under Section 7A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short, the Act, 1952), has been initiated against the petitioner. He would further submit that a report was submitted by the enforcement officer of the department on 22.08.2024 and according to that report, the petitioner was required to deposit 1,15,03,903 against the dues under the Act. He would ₹ contend that the enforcement officer of the department again submitted a report on 18.12.2024 whereby assessed the payable amount to the tune of ₹4,15,98,399. He would also submit that the enforcement officer recorded the findings in the report dated 18.12.2024 on the basis of various complaints and documents submitted by the complainants. Mr. Dixit would further argue that the relevant documents were not supplied to the petitioner and behind the back of the petitioner, the report was submitted. He would also argue that the respondent authorities may be directed to re-enquire into the matter after supplying the relevant documents submitted by the complainant(s); thus, he would pray that the -3- petitioner may be afforded sufficient opportunities to go through the documents to submit its reply, etc. 3) On the other hand, Mr. Sunil Pillai would submit that an enquiry was initiated according to Section 7A of the Act, 1952 and no decision has been taken yet by the enquiry officer. He would further submit that as there is no order or decision, therefore, this petition is premature. He would contend that there is a remedy of appeal against any order, etc. according to the provisions of Section 7 (I) of the Act 1952. He would argue that the petitioner has himself admitted in the daily order dated 31.12.2024 that one Kuldeep Chaturvedi has gone through the report and requested two weeks’ time to submit his response in support of his disagreement and to file an appeal before the appropriate forum. He would inform that the next date of hearing is 13.01.2025. 4) Heard counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents. 5) The daily order dated 31.12.2024 would reveal that one of the officers of the petitioner company went through the enquiry report and took time to file a response, but it is not reflected in the order that the relevant documents were supplied to the petitioner; an application was moved by the petitioner on 06.12.2024 to supply relevant documents before the respondent authorities. Further, the order passed in WPL No. 216 of 2024 would reveal that a report was submitted by respondent No.2 and in the -4- subsequent report, it is not stated as to what transpired to file a subsequent report without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and without supplying the relevant documents. 6) Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case in hand, the report dated 18.12.2024 is hereby quashed. The respondent authorities are directed to provide all relevant documents including complaint(s) etc. to the petitioner within a period of 7 days. The petitioner would be at liberty to file a reply/response etc. within a further period of 7 days. Thereafter, the respondent authorities would be at liberty to proceed with the matter and shall make all endeavours to conclude the proceedings as per order passed in WPL No.216 of 2024. 7) Accordingly, the instant petition is hereby allowed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nadim