$~105 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010455612026 + W.P.(C) 14019/2026, CM APPL. 65630/2026 M/S WD KANOON E SAHAYAK ADVISORS LLP.....Petitioner Through: Mr. Saurabh Pandey, Mr. Raj Srivastava, Garima Chauhan, Mr. Akash Chowdhury, Mr. Arnav Vats & Ms. Suchita Gautam, Advocates. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Counsel for Respondents (appearance not given) CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA O R D E R % 23.09.2026 CM APPL. 65629/2026 (Exemption) 1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 2. The Application stands disposed of. W.P.(C) 14019/2026 3. Writ Petition Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been filed on behalf of the Petitioner to challenge the Order dated 27.05.2026 passed by the Respondent No. 3, under Section 7A of the Employees‟ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 whereby the Respondents have been directed to pay Rs.1,03,142/- as dues payable for default period from July 2021 to March, 2022. 4. Learned counsel for the Respondents, has appeared on advance Notice and taken a preliminary objection against the maintainability of the present Writ Petition. It is submitted that the remedy of Appeal has been provided in Section 7-I of the Act. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/09/2026 at 12:27:01 5. The Petitioner has stated in the Petition itself that he does not intend to avail the remedy of Appeal because Section 74 of the Act mandates the deposit of the amount for filing the Appeal. It is claimed by the Petitioner that the said provision is onerous as it requires deposit of money and is not an alternative efficacious remedy for the Petitioner and he intends to file the Writ Petition. 6. Learned counsel for the Respondents, submits that this cannot be a ground for bypassing the remedy of Appeal and the Petition is liable to be rejected. It is further submitted that the impugned Order has been passed by the PF Commissioner as a “Fair Assessment Judgment”, since the Petitioner herein failed to appear or submit any document whatsoever, before the Commissioner; he was left with no option but to give the Judgment, which pertains to the PF contribution of the employees of the Petitioner. 7. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, however, has stated that he had filed a Reply/representation dated 29.01.2024, before the PF Commissioner and had also filed the documents, which have not been considered in the impugned Order. Submissions heard and the record perused. 8. Since, there is a statutory Appeal available with the Petitioner under Section 7 of the EPF Act, the present Writ Petition is disposed of with liberty to the Petitioner to pursue the remedy, in accordance with law. The pending Application is also disposed of accordingly. NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J SEPTEMBER 23, 2026/RS This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/09/2026 at 12:27:01