( 2026:JHHC:14583 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (L) No. 623 of 2026 1. M/s Ganga Sagar Construction, having its Head office at Sahnaura, Chak Nawadah, P.O Barh & P.S.- Barh, District- Patna, through its proprietor Munna Kumar Singh, aged about 38 years, s/o- Saroj Kumar Singh, Resident of Sahnaura, Chak Nawadah, P.O. Barh & P.S.- Barh, District- Patna, Bihar-803213. 2. Munna Kumar Singh, aged about 38 years, S/o – Saroj Kumar Singh, Resident of Sahnaura, Chak Nawadah, P.O. Barh & P.S.- Barh, District- Patna, Bihar- 803213. … … Petitioners Versus 1. The Employees Provident Fund Organization through the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, having its regional office at Samnta Complex, Court Road, Near Tower Chowk, P.O. & P.S.-Giridih, District- Giridih, Jharkhand, Pin- 815301 2. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, having its regional office at Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan Bhagirathi Complex, Karamtoli, P.O.- Ranchi, P.S.-Ranchi, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand, Pin-834001. 3. The NTPC Limited, through the DGM (HR), having its office at Kahalgaon, P.O. & P.S.-Kahalgaon, District-Bhagalpur, Bihar- 813214. 4. The General Manager (Adm), Barh Super Thermal Power Project, Barh NTPC, having an office at Barh, P.O.-NTPC Campus, Barh, P.S.-Barh, District- Patna, Bihar-803215. 5. The HDFC Bank, through its Branch Manager, K.R. Modi Mall, Gandhi Chowk, P.O.& P.S.- Giridih, District- Giridih, Jharkhand- 815301. … Respondents --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioners : Mr. Sudhanshu Kumar Singh, Advocate : Mrs. Chainika, Advocate : Mr. Devanshu Kumar, Advocate For the EPFO : Mr. Rupesh Singh, Advocate Mr. Harshit Sahay, Advocate : Mr. Sudhanshu Singh, Advocate For the NTPC : Mr. Aryan Anurag A.C. to Mr. Prashant Pallav, ASGI : Mr. Harsh Vardhan, : A.C. to Mr. Kumar Harsh, Advocate --- 06/12.05.2026 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:- I. “ For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/ Orders(s)/ direction(s) or a writ particularly in the nature of certiorari for quashing the Order dated 13.01.2022, (Annexure-3) passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II, in the Diary No. 918 of 2018, whereby and whereunder it ( 2026:JHHC:14583 ) 2 has been held that the Petitioner is liable to pay the Dues of Rs.11,86,429/-, for the Period of August 2014 to April 2015. II. For issuance of an appropriate writ particularly in the nature of certiorari for quashing the Demand Notice dated 18.04.2022 contained in Memo No. JHRAN14355/ 0033570 /01/04/2022/502/35/76,(Annexure-4) whereby and whereunder, the Petitioner is asked to make payment of an amount of Rs. 11,86,429/-, determined under Section 7A of the EPF & MP Act, 1952 for the period from August 2014 to April 2018. III. For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/ Orders(s)/ direction(s) or a writ particularly in the nature of certiorari for quashing the Prohibitory order dated 31.08.2022, contained in Memo No. JH/RO/ RNC/ RECOVERY /30030/2022/448-B/20488 (Annexure-5) issued under the signature of the Recovery Officer, EPFO, Regional Office, Ranchi, Jharkhand, Whereby and whereunder the DGM (HR), M/s NTPC, Kahalgaon, Bhagalpur, was directed to prohibit and restrain the Petitioner Establishment from receiving any bill/payment from the NTPC, Kahalgaon, Bhagalpur and further direction was given to M/s NTPC, Kahalgaon, Bhagalpur, to pay the updated due amount of Rs. 11,87, 429/- or to extent of the balance available, in the favour of Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Ranchi, through Demand Draft. IV. For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/ Orders(s)/ direction(s) or a writ particularly in the nature of certiorari for quashing the Letter dated 31.07.2024, contained in Memo No. JH/DO/GRD/Recov/33570/RRC- 14355/2022/226, Annexure-6) issued under the signature of the Assistant PF Commissioner/Recovery Officer, EPFO, Regional Office, Giridih, Jharkhand, whereby the General Manager (Adm), NTPC, Super Thermal Power Station, Barh, has been directed to make payment of the due amount or direct the Establishment under which the defaulter establishment is working to stop payment to the defaulter establishment and remit its due payment. V. For further issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/Orders(s)/direction(s) or a writ particularly in the nature of Mandamus commanding the Respondents to detach the Bank Account of the petitioner No. 01, which the Respondents have attached. VI. For further issuance of an appropriate writs)/ Orders (s/ direction(s)/ or a writ particularly in the nature of certiorari for quashing the warrant of Arrest contained in ( 2026:JHHC:14583 ) 3 meme No. DO/Giridih/Recovery/JH/33570/2025/602 dated 19.02.2025, (Annexure-9) issued by the Recovery Officer, District Office, Giridih, whereby the Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna, was directed to arrest Petitioner No. 02, the Proprietor of the petitioner M/s Ganga Sagar Constructions. VII. For further issuance of an appropriate Writ(s)/Orders(s)/direction(s)/or a writ particularly in the nature of Mandamus commanding the Respondents to stay the operation of the Warrant of Arrest and not to take any coercive step against the petitioners, during the pendency of this Writ petition. VIII. For further issuance of an appropriate writ(s) Orders(s)/directions) as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.” 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the order dated 13.01.2022 as contained in Annexure-3 is under challenge in this writ petition along with other consequential orders. He has referred to the order and has submitted that on 06.01.2022 the petitioners were directed to produce certain documents which included (1) Form-26 AS for the enquiry period, (2) P/L account and balance sheet for the enquiry period, (3) Attendance and wages register, (4) bank statement (5) copy of work order. He submits that all these documents were relating to the period from 08//2014 to 4/2018 and the next date of hearing was fixed on 10.01.2022. On 10.01.2022 the petitioners, though did not personally appear before the Authority, but sent an e-mail praying for some more time for submission of documents but time was not granted and ultimately the impugned order has been passed. He submits that in such a short time from 06.01.2022 till 10.01.2022, it was not possible to deposit such old records which were directed to be deposited at the instance of the Area Enforcement Officer on 06.01.2022. 4. The learned counsel submits that it is not a case where petitioners have not been participating in the proceedings under section 7A, rather on 14.07.2021 certain documents were also submitted by the petitioners which is apparent from the impugned order passed under Section 7-A. He has referred to internal page 2 of ( 2026:JHHC:14583 ) 4 impugned order, wherein it has been recorded that along with the e- mail dated 14.07.2021, certain attachments were also received with respect to salary, P.F. deduction details of employees engaged at NTPC Barh for 09 months, challan of M/S HV Equipment Pvt. Ltd. Uttar Pradesh (one of the principal employers of the establishment). 5. The learned counsel has submitted that if one opportunity is granted to the petitioners, they shall produce the relevant records. 6. He submits that alternative remedy will not be an impediment in this case in view of the fact that there has been gross violation of principles of nature justice. He has relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2024) 6 SCC 579 (PHR Invent Educational Society versus UCO bank and Others) to submit that it has been held in paragraph 37 of the judgement that the power under Article 226 can be exercised in spite of availability of alternative remedy under certain circumstances, they are- (i) Where the statutory authority has not acted in accordance with the provisions of the enactment in question; (ii) it has acted in defiance of the fundamental principles of natural justice (iii) it has resorted to invoke the provisions which are repealed and (iv) when an order has been passed in total violation of the principles of natural justice. 7. The learned counsel for the respondent-EPFO has opposed the prayer and has submitted that the petitioners have failed to avail the statutory remedy of appeal against the order of assessment passed under Section 7-A of Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952(hereinafter referred to as ‘aforesaid Act’). He has also submitted that the petitioners have moved this Court only after certain coercive steps were undertaken by the respondent to realize the dues which included issuance of bailable warrant of arrest and attachment of account and the petitioners at one stage way back in the year 2022 also made a prayer that they would clear the dues of the organization. The learned counsel submits that under such circumstances, the petitioners are not entitled to any relief under ( 2026:JHHC:14583 ) 5 Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The learned counsel has also referred to the judgement passed in LPA No. 893 of 2019 dated 23.02.2021, paragraph 13 and 14 wherein it has been observed that the maximum period for filling the statutory appeal is 120 (60+60) days from the date of issuance of the order and as of now the statutory appeal is also barred by limitation. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioners, in response, has submitted that the prayer for giving installment for payment was made under the circumstances when EPFO was constantly following up with the petitioners and coercive steps were taken when Annexure-5 dated 03.08.2022/06.09.2022 was issued to the petitioners for realization of the dues. 9. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and upon going through the impugned order as contained in Annexure-3, this court finds that the proceeding against the petitioners commenced some times in the year 2018 and there is no doubt that on a large number of dates, nobody had appeared on behalf of the petitioners. However, it appears that after a number of dates, the petitioner started appearing before the Authority. 10. From perusal of the impugned order as contained in annexure-3 , it is apparent that on 11.11.2020, the petitioners had appeared and he was asked to submit attendance and salary record of all employees for the case period with proof of EPF deposit in Principal Employer code in respect of concerned employees. He was also asked to submit balance sheet, bank statement, work order, Form-26AS. The proprietor requested time to send the records and accordingly the next date of hearing was fixed on 02.12.2020. On 02.12.2020 also, he prayed for some more time and the next date was fixed on 11.02.2021 and thereafter on successive dates i.e. on 11.02.2021, 11.03.2021, 15.04.2021, 22.04.2021, 12.05.2021, nobody appeared before the authority. Thereafter on 04.06.2021, the petitioners prayed for some more time and the next date was fixed on 16.06.2021. Thereafter again the petitioners did not appear and he sent an e-mail on 14.07.2021 with some documents and ultimately, he again prayed for time on ( 2026:JHHC:14583 ) 6 06.01.2022 and while granting time, he was directed to produce documents. The next date was fixed as 10.01.2022 and on that day, the proprietor of the petitioner did not appear and ultimately the proceeding was closed and the impugned order was passed. 11. The authority was of the view that enough time was granted to the petitioners to produce the relevant documents, but in absence of such documents the order impugned was passed on 13.01.2022 on the basis of available materials on record. 12. This Court is of the considered view that the perusal of the impugned order reveals that enough opportunity was granted to the petitioners to produce the relevant documents and when the petitioners failed to avail of the given opportunities the impugned order at annexure 3 was passed. The impugned order at annexure 3 cannot be said to have been passed in violation of principles of natural justice and fair play and accordingly, the judgement relied upon by the petitioners reported in (2024) 6 SCC 579 (supra) does not help the petitioners in any manner whatsoever. 13. It further appears that a certificate case was instituted being Certificate Case No. 14355 dated 08.04.2022 and prohibitory order was issued on 06.09.2022 and thereafter the petitioners were requesting for time to deposit the entire amount. However, the petitioners did not take any step to challenge the order passed under Section 7-A of the aforesaid Act and now the statutory appeal has also become barred by limitation in view of the judgment passed in L.P.A. No. 893 of 2019 wherein it has been held that the maximum period of filing appeal is 60+60 (condonable) days. The order under section 7A of the aforesaid Act has been passed is dated 13.01.2022 and the petitioners did not avail the alternative remedy of appeal within the statutory period prescribed and has filed the writ petition after expiry of almost 4 years from the date of passing of the impugned order dated 13.01.2022. 14. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is not inclined to exercise power under Article 226 of the Constitution of ( 2026:JHHC:14583 ) 7 India and consequently, the order impugned order contained in Annexure 3 does not call for any interference. 15. With respect to the warrant of arrest at annexure-6 of the writ petition issued against the petitioners is concerned, it has been pointed out by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent EPFO that the prayer for challenging the warrant of arrest dated 19.02.2025 has become infructuous in view of the fact that the warrant of arrest was made returnable on 31.03.2025 and the period has already elapsed. He submits that unless a fresh warrant of arrest is issued, the impugned warrant of arrest has lost its force. Having recorded the submission of learned counsel for the respondent as above, with respect to the warrant of arrest, no further pronouncement is required in this regard from this court except that it is of no consequence having been rendered infructuous. 16. At this, learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to and produced a circular issued by Employees Provident Funds Organization dated 11.02.2014 and has submitted that as per the said circular, the installment facility can be availed by the petitioners to liquidate the due amount in arrears in 36 installments. He submits that appropriate direction be issued so that if an application is filed by the petitioners for consideration of fixing of installment of payment, the authority will fix the installment in terms of the said circular. 17. To this, learned counsel for the respondents has no objection and he submits that the appropriate authority would be the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-I, Ranchi Zone. 18. Accordingly, liberty is reserved with the petitioners to move before the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-I, Ranchi Zone, for fixing the installment in terms of the circular dated 11.02.2014 to clear the dues amount. Such application be made within four weeks from today and if such an application is filed, appropriate order will be passed by the concerned authority. It is further observed that if installments are fixed for clearing the dues and the petitioners abide by the payment in terms of the installments so fixed, there could be no ( 2026:JHHC:14583 ) 8 reason for the authority to take any coercive steps against the petitioners. 19. This writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. 20. Pending I.A., if any, is closed. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Dated: 12.05.2026 Uploaded on 13.05.2026 Binit/