APHC010483202026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH THURSDAY, THE 24 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NOs.27344 & 26589 of 2026 WRIT PETITION NO: 27344 OF 2026 Between: 1. SHAIK ALTAF, S/o.Sri Khadar Basha, Proprietor of M/s.Tollywod A/C DTS Theatre, H.No.19-15-26, Chandrababu Naidu Colony, Revenue Ward Beside B Convention Function Hall, Guntur Bazar, Guntur A.P. State of Andhra Pradesh. 1. THE RECOVERY OFFICER, Office of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner - I, Employee's Provident Fund Organization, Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India, Regional Office, 3rd Lane, Krishna Nagar. Guntur - 522 006. 2. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner I, Employee's Provident Fund Organization, Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India, Regional Office, 3rd Lane, Krishna Nagar, Guntur 3. The Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, North Block, Central Secretariat, New Delhi IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE 24th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NOs.27344 & 26589 of 2026 PETITION NO: 27344 OF 2026 1. SHAIK ALTAF, S/o.Sri Khadar Basha, Proprietor of M/s.Tollywod A/C DTS 26, Chandrababu Naidu Colony, Revenue Ward Beside B Convention Function Hall, Guntur Bazar, Guntur - 522 003, Guntur, A.P. State of Andhra Pradesh. AND 1. THE RECOVERY OFFICER, Office of the Regional Provident Fund I, Employee's Provident Fund Organization, Ministry of and Employment, Government of India, Regional Office, 3rd Lane, 522 006. 2. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner I, Employee's Provident Fund Organization, Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India, ffice, 3rd Lane, Krishna Nagar, Guntur - 522 006. 3. The Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, North Block, Central Secretariat, New Delhi - 110 001 ...Respondents IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NOs.27344 & 26589 of 2026 1. SHAIK ALTAF, S/o.Sri Khadar Basha, Proprietor of M/s.Tollywod A/C DTS 26, Chandrababu Naidu Colony, Revenue Ward - 33, 522 003, Guntur, ...Petitioner 1. THE RECOVERY OFFICER, Office of the Regional Provident Fund I, Employee's Provident Fund Organization, Ministry of and Employment, Government of India, Regional Office, 3rd Lane, 2. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner I, Employee's Provident Fund Organization, Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India, 3. The Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary, Department of Revenue, Ministry 110 001 ...Respondents 2 Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or Order or Direction declaring the action of the 1st Respondent in issuing Arrear Demand Notice demanding an amount of Rs.5,20,928/- for the period 01.11.2016 to 31.03.2024 under Section 14B and 7Q of The Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act,1952 is arbitrary, contrary to law and in violation of principles of natural justice and rule of law and without jurisdiction and consequently set aside the Notice of Demand dated 05.02.2025 issued by the 1st Respondent, as null and void and alternatively direct the 1st Respondent to consider explanation / representation of the Petitioner dated 11.04.2026 IA NO: 1 OF 2026 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the Notice of Demand dated tat .2025 issued by the 1st Respondent, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition Counsel for the Petitioner: SHAIK JEELANI BASHA Counsel for the Respondents: T BALAJI(SC FOR EPFO) Counsel for the Respondents: K MALLIKHARJUNA MOORTHY APHC010483192026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH THURSDAY, THE 24 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 26589 OF 2026 Between: 1. Shaik Altaf,, S/o.Sri Khadar Basha, Proprietor of M/s.Metro A/C DTS Theatre, H.No.19-15-26, Chandrababu Naidu Colony, Revenue Ward Beside B Convention Function Hall, Guntur Bazar, Guntur A.P. State of Andhra Pradesh. 1. The Recovery Officer, Office of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner - I, Employees Provident Fund Organization, Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India, Regional Office, 3rd Lane, Krishna Nagar, Guntur - 522 006. 2. The Regional Provident Fund, Commissioner Fund Organization, Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India, Regional Office, 3rd Lane, Krishna Nagar, Guntur 3. The Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary, of Finance, North Block, Central Secretariat, New Delhi Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High C pleased to issue Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or Order or 3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE 24th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 26589 OF 2026 1. Shaik Altaf,, S/o.Sri Khadar Basha, Proprietor of M/s.Metro A/C DTS 26, Chandrababu Naidu Colony, Revenue Ward Beside B Convention Function Hall, Guntur Bazar, Guntur-522 003, Guntur, A.P. State of Andhra Pradesh. AND 1. The Recovery Officer, Office of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner I, Employees Provident Fund Organization, Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India, Regional Office, 3rd Lane, Krishna 522 006. Regional Provident Fund, Commissioner - I, Employee's Provident Fund Organization, Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India, Regional Office, 3rd Lane, Krishna Nagar, Guntur -522 006. 3. The Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, North Block, Central Secretariat, New Delhi - 110 001 ...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High C pleased to issue Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or Order or IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI 1. Shaik Altaf,, S/o.Sri Khadar Basha, Proprietor of M/s.Metro A/C DTS 26, Chandrababu Naidu Colony, Revenue Ward - 33, 522 003, Guntur, ...Petitioner 1. The Recovery Officer, Office of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner I, Employees Provident Fund Organization, Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India, Regional Office, 3rd Lane, Krishna I, Employee's Provident Fund Organization, Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of 522 006. Department of Revenue, Ministry 110 001 ...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or Order or 4 Direction declaring the action of the 1st Respondent in issuing Arrear Demand Notice demanding an amount of Rs.4,12,696/- for the period 01.08.2016 to 31.03.2024 under Section 14B and 7Q of The Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act,1952 is arbitrary, contrary to law and in violation of principles of natural justice and rule of law and without jurisdiction and consequently set aside the Notice of Demand dated 05.05.2025 issued by the 1st Respondent, as null and void and alternatively direct the 1st Respondent to consider explanation / representation of the Petitioner dated 11.04.2026 IA NO: 1 OF 2026 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the Notice of Demand dated 05.05.2025 issued by the 1st Respondent, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition, as otherwise, the Petitioner will be put to severe loss and hardship. Counsel for the Petitioner: SHAIK JEELANI BASHA Counsel for the Respondents: T BALAJI(SC FOR EPFO) Counsel for the Respondents: V VENKATA NAGA RAJU(CENTRAL GOVT COUNSEL) 5 The Court made the following common order: Since the issue involved in both the Writ Petitions is identical, they are being disposed of by this Common Order. 2. The petitioners have filed these Writ Petitions questioning the Arrear Demand Notices issued by respondent No.1 demanding amounts of Rs.5,20,928/- for the period from 01.11.2016 to 31.03.2024 and Rs.4,12,696/- for the period from 01.08.2016 to 31.03.2024 respectively, towards damages under Section 14B and interest under Section 7Q of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short, ‘the Act’). 3. Heard Sri Kamalakar, learned counsel, representing Sri Shaik Jeelani Basha, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri K. Mallikarjuna Moorthy, learned Central Government Counsel, and Sri T. Balaji, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Employees’ Provident Fund Organization. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners, while reiterating the averments made in the respective affidavits, submitted that the petitioners had taken the subject theatres on lease from the Endowments Department during the period 01.10.2011 to 31.03.2015 and were carrying on the business of screening movies therein. It is submitted that the theatres were renovated and were being operated subject to the validity of the licences and lease arrangements. He further submitted that the petitioners had already paid the amounts due to the concerned Department for the relevant period. He further submitted that, pursuant to the Arrear Demand Notices dated 02.05.2025 and 05.05.2025, the 6 petitioners submitted detailed representations dated 11.04.2026. However, without considering the said representations and without affording an effective opportunity of hearing, the respondents proceeded to demand the alleged arrears. He also submitted that the Licensing Authority/Joint Collector had earlier issued show-cause notices dated 07.12.2015 pursuant to the report of the Deputy Commissioner, Endowments Department, wherein it was stated that the theatres had fallen into arrears payable to the Endowments Department and that the lease arrangement had come to an end. He submitted that the aforesaid circumstances have a direct bearing on the liability sought to be imposed upon the petitioners and, therefore, were required to be duly considered by the competent authority before determining the liability under the Act. He further contended that the purported demand towards interest under Section 7Q of the Act was raised without following the procedure prescribed under law and without affording the petitioners a meaningful opportunity to place the relevant material before the competent authority. Hence, the order passed under Section 7Q and the consequential Arrear Demand Notices are liable to be set aside. 5. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that three opportunities were afforded to the petitioners during the proceedings and that, despite such opportunities, no one appeared on behalf of the establishments and the statutory dues were also not remitted. He further contended that the order under Section 7Q was passed in 7 accordance with law and as the petitioners have not complied with the orders, consequential Arrear Demand Notices were issued pursuant thereto. 6. At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are ready and willing to appear before the competent authority and place all relevant material on record and requested that the matter may be remitted to the authority for fresh consideration. 7. Learned Standing Counsel, however, fairly submitted that, if this Court is inclined to interfere with the impugned proceedings, liberty may be granted to the competent authority to adjudicate the matter afresh after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. 8. Perused the material available on record and considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties. 9. The material on record, particularly the order passed under Section 7Q of the Act, shows that the authority stated that three opportunities were given to the employer on different dates. However, the order does not disclose the particulars regarding issuance and service of notices, the dates on which such notices were issued, the manner in which they were served, and whether the petitioners were effectively afforded an opportunity to place their case and relevant material before the authority. 10. The opportunity of hearing must be real and meaningful and cannot be treated as a mere formality. When an order affects a person’s rights or liability, the authority must provide a proper and meaningful opportunity of hearing. 8 The material on record, in the present case, does not satisfactorily establish that the petitioners were afforded such an effective opportunity before passing the order under Section 7Q of the Act. The petitioners have already submitted representations dated 11.04.2026 seeking consideration of their case and an opportunity of personal hearing. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that requiring the petitioners to challenge the order under Section 7Q separately, only to secure an opportunity of hearing, would be a futile exercise. 11. The principle of ‘empty formality’ applies where remanding a matter only to comply with a procedural requirement would serve no useful purpose. However, in the present case, the issue is not merely a technical formality. The order under Section 7Q has financial consequences for the petitioners and, on a perusal of the order, this Court finds that the opportunity of hearing was not shown to have been afforded in an effective and meaningful manner. Further, the petitioners have specifically requested an opportunity to place their material and representations before the competent authority. Therefore, permitting the petitioners to once again file separate proceedings merely to challenge the order under Section 7Q, with the matter ultimately being remitted for consideration after hearing them, would amount to driving the petitioners through an unnecessary and futile exercise. In the peculiar facts of the case, such a course would be an empty formality, particularly when the impugned order itself suffers from violation of the principles of natural justice. Hence, this Court is of the view that the order passed under Section 7Q of the 9 Act cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside. Consequently, the Arrear Demand Notices issued pursuant thereto also cannot sustained and are liable to be set aside. 12. Accordingly, the Writ Petitions are disposed of. The order dated 09.12.2024 passed under Section 7Q of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, and the consequential Arrear Demand Notices dated 02.05.2025 and 05.05.2025, are hereby set aside. The matters are remanded to the competent authority for fresh consideration. The competent authority shall consider the representations dated 11.04.2026 submitted by the petitioners, issue proper notices to the petitioners, afford them a reasonable opportunity of personal hearing and permit them to place all relevant material in support of their case, and thereafter pass fresh, reasoned orders in accordance with law. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that the petitioners shall cooperate with the proceedings and appear before the competent authority on the dates fixed. In the event of their failure to appear, despite due service of notice, the competent authority shall be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, interlocutory applications pending, if any in the Writ Petition, shall also stand closed. ____________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI 24.09.2026 MP 10 140 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NOs.27344 & 26589 of 2026 24.09.2026 MP