- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11396 WP No. 67399 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA WRIT PETITION NO. 67399 OF 2011 (L-PF) BETWEEN: CHANNABASAVESHWAR GRAMEENA VIDYA SAMSTHE SHIGGAON, DIST: HAVERI, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, SHRI RAJU M. KUNNUR. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. Z.N. HANSI, ADVOCATE) AND: ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, HUBLI. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. P.V. GUNJAL, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ORDER PASSED AT ANNEXURE-A BEARING NO.KN/HBL/40554/ENF/3023/875/08 DATED 28/11/2008 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT AND ORDER PASSED BY THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT ANNEXURE-B BEARING NO. ATA NO: 279(6) 09 DATED 20/09/2011 AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Digitally signed by YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Location: HIGHCOURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DHARWAD - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11396 WP No. 67399 of 2011 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA ORAL ORDER The present writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner calling in question the order bearing No.KN/HBL/40554/ENF/3023/875/08 dated 28.11.2008 (Annexure-A) by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, S.R.O. Hubli1, as well as the order bearing ATA No.279 (6) 09 dated 20.06.2011 (Annexure-B) passed by the Employees’ Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal2. 2. It is the primary contention of the petitioner that less than 20% of the educational institutions are functioning, and therefore, it is not liable under the provisions of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 19523. It is further contended that in the proceedings initiated under Section 7-A of the Act, which culminated in the order dated 28.11.2008 (Annexure-A), passed by the Commissioner the petitioner did not actively participate, although it appeared before the Commissioner. The relevant documents with regard to the stand 1 Hereinafter referred to as the ‘Commissioner’ 2 Hereinafter referred to as the ‘Appellate Tribunal’ 3 Hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’ - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11396 WP No. 67399 of 2011 of the petitioner were not placed on record, and hence, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. 3. The Appellate Tribunal, vide order dated 20.09.2011, remanded the matter to the Commissioner to determine the staff strength of the petitioner and to decide the applicability of the provisions of the Act and liability, based on the documents produced. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present petition is filed. 4. Although it is the vehement contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that it is evident from the documents produced in the present writ petition that the petitioner is not liable to pay the amount as assessed in the order dated 28.11.2008 (Annexure-A), it is pertinent to note here that the documents produced by the petitioner in the present writ petition on which reliance is placed by the petitioner, were not placed before the Commissioner during the proceedings under Section 7-A of the Act, wherein, the order dated 28.11.2008 (Annexure- A) has been passed. 5. The Appellate Tribunal has rightly remanded the matter to enable the petitioner to produce the relevant - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11396 WP No. 67399 of 2011 documents and to enable the Commissioner to determine the liability, if any, on the basis of the documents produced. 6. In view of the aforementioned, the petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the relief sought for in the present writ petition is required to be granted. 7. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of by directing the petitioner to appear before the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, S.R.O. Hubli, on 15.11.2025, without the requirement of any further notice issued in this regard. The petitioner is at liberty to produce the necessary documents as on the date of appearance before the Commissioner. 8. Upon the appearance of the petitioner, the respondent shall redo the proceedings under Section 7-A of the Act, in accordance with law, and pass appropriate orders after duly considering the case put forth by the petitioner. Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE PMP CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20