HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 13225 of 2026 Court No. - 37 HON'BLE VINOD DIWAKAR, J. 1. Heard Shri Sunil Tripathi, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Shri Sandeep Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Shri Jagdish Pathak, learned counsel for respondent nos. 3, 4, and 5, and perused the record. 2. The present petition has been filed assailing the impugned orders dated 02.01.2026, whereby the petitioner's bank account has been freezed, resulting in substantial hardship, as the petitioner is unable to carry on day- to-day affairs and meet essential expenses. 3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned action is arbitrary and legally unsustainable. It is contended that the petitioner has already deposited a sum of Rs.11,00,000/- in compliance with the order dated 21.03.2023 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Writ-C No.8705 of 2023. It is further contended that no prior notice was issued to the petitioner, nor was any communication served by email as recorded in the impugned order. The findings returned by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II are thus alleged to be perverse and unsupported by any material on record, amounting to a violation of the principles of natural justice. 4. Learned Senior Counsel has also placed reliance on decisions of the Calcutta High Court in M/s. Basirhat Food Supply Co-operative Society Ltd. and Ors. v. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and Ors. (2026) LLR 348 and Kerala High Court in Kerala State Co-operative Coir Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Devesh Tripathi, Sandeep Pandey, Sunil Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Respondent(s) : A.S.G.I., Arvind Nath Agrawal, Ashish Agrawal, Gaurav Gautam, Jagdish Pathak, Om Prakash Gupta, Shrey Singh M/S Maa Khandwari PG College .....Petitioner(s) Union Of India And 6 Others .....Respondent(s) Marketing federation v. The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner and Another (2025) LLR 462 to submit that during the pendency of an appeal, coercive recovery proceedings ought ordinarily to be deferred, so as to preserve the efficacy of the appellate remedy. 5. Having considered the rival submissions and upon perusal of the record, it is evident that the petitioner has made substantial compliance by depositing Rs.11 Lakhs. The issues raised in the present petition are also subject matter of a pending appeal before the competent appellate authority. 6. In such circumstances, and in the interest of justice, the petition is disposed of with the following directions: (i) The appellate authority shall consider and decide the petitioner's pending appeal expeditiously, preferably within a period of two weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order, after affording due opportunity of hearing to all concerned parties, (ii) Till the appeal is decided, no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner pursuant to the impugned order dated 02.01.2026, (iii) In the event the appeal is not decided within the aforesaid period, the operation of the impugned order dated 02.01.2026 shall remain stayed till the final adjudication of the appeal, (iv) The freezing of the petitioner's bank account effected pursuant to the impugned order shall remain in abeyance, and the petitioner shall be permitted to operate the said account, subject to the outcome of the appeal. April 20, 2026 Anil K. Sharma WRIC No. 13225 of 2026 2 (Vinod Diwakar,J.) Digitally signed by :- ANIL KUMAR SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad