1 2025:CGHC:22365 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPL No. 102 of 2025 M/s. Best Security Services Through Its Proprietor- Kuldeep Chaturvedi S/o Shri Rajkishore Chaturvedi, Aged About 43 Years, Having Office At Flat No. 30, Third Floor, Usha Kiran Parisar, Behind Jagriti School, Bhatagaon, Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Central Board Of Trustees (Epf) Through Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organization, Regional Office, Raipur, Block D, Scheme No. 32, Indira Gandhi Commercial Complex, Pandri, Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Enforcement Officer, Employees Provident Fund Organization, Ministry Of Labour And Employment, Regional Office At Block D, Scheme No. 32, Indira Gandhi Commercial Complex, Pandri, Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Shishir Dixit, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Pankaj Singh, Advocate Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR SINHA Date: 2025.05.28 12:52:54 +0530 2 S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order on Board 27/05/2025 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset submit that this writ petition is filed only for a direction to respondents authority to conclude the inquiry proceeding pending against the petitioner under Section 7-A of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short “Act of 1952”). 2. Learned counsel for respondents raises an objection to the maintainability of writ petition on the ground that in a writ petition filed by the petitioner bearing WPL No.216 of 2024, four months time was granted to respondents to conclude the proceedings under Section 7-A of the Act of 1952. When proceedings could not be concluded within the specified time, respondents have filed an application i.e. MCC No.267 of 2025 seeking extension of time to conclude the proceedings and this Court vide order dated 19.03.2025 has further granted three months time to conclude the proceedings and pursuant to said order, respondents are having time till 19.06.2025 to conclude the proceedings and, therefore, this writ petition is pre-mature. 3. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the respective parties and considering the order passed in WPL No.216 of 2024 (Annexure P-2) and order passed in MCC No.267 of 2025 (Annexure P-4), in the opinion of this Court, this writ petition is pre-mature and, hence, I do not find any good ground to entertain this writ petition. 4. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed. 3 5. Consequently, IA No.3, application for urgent hearing and IA No.4 application for hearing of the case during summer vacation also stand disposed off. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Praveen