- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28818 WP No. 38950 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M WRIT PETITION NO. 38950 OF 2025 (L-PF) BETWEEN: THE STEMS 'N' LEAVES INTERNATIONAL REG OFF: SALVADORE VILLA, URWA-CHILIMBI, MANGALORE-575006. REPRESENTED BY THE PROPRIETOR., MR.JUDE JERALD GOVEAS, S/O. MR. VICTOR GOVEAS, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT NO.2-14-1203/5, 4TH CROSS ROAD ANEGUNDI, NEAR SBI BANK, KAPIKAD, MANGALORE-575004. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. AJAY PRABHU M., ADVOCATE) AND: THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION, REGIONAL OFFICE, BHAVISHYA NIDHI BHAWAN, NO.572, HIGHLANDS, SILVA ROAD, MANGALURU-575002. …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. NALINI VENKATESH, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS. Digitally signed by GEETHA P G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28818 WP No. 38950 of 2025 THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER Sri.Ajay Prabhu M., counsel for the petitioner and Smt.Nalini Venkatesh, counsel for the respondent appeared in person. 2. This petition is filed seeking following reliefs: (i) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order quashing the impugned order bearing No.KN/MN/RO/RO/Compliance-I/1770061/2025- 26/223 dated 07.11.2025 as per Annexure-A passed by the respondent. (ii) Issue writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order quashing the impugned order bearing No.KN/MN/RO/1770061/ENF-II/26/2024-25 in E- Court Diary No.13/2023 dated 07.04.2025 passed by respondent 1 as per Annexure-B and all further proceedings thereto Annexure-B. (iii) Issue writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order quashing the impugned attachment order bearing No.KN/MN/RO/1770061/Compliance I/8F/2025-2026/136 dated 14.10.2025 as per Annexure-J passed by the respondent. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28818 WP No. 38950 of 2025 (iv) Issue any other writ or order or direction that deems fit to grant in the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity. 3. Counsel for the respective parties urged several contentions. Counsel for the petitioner argued by saying that there a violation of principles of natural justice while passing the order under Section 7-A of the Act. He placed reliance on the following decision: HARBANSLAL SAHNIA AND ANOTHER V/S. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION AND OTHERS REPORTED IN (2003) 2 SCC 107. Counsel for the respondent in presenting her arguments strenuously urged that the Writ Petition is not maintainable. She argued by saying that the Writ Petition is filed challenging the 7A order without exhausting the alternative remedy of filing an appeal under Section 7-I of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. Hence, she submits that the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28818 WP No. 38950 of 2025 4. I have perused the Writ papers with utmost care. The Writ Petition is filed challenging the 7A order without exhausting the alternate statutory remedy of filing an appeal under Section 7-I of The Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. It is significant to note that Article 226 is not intended to circumvent statutory procedures. When a right or liability is created by a statute which itself prescribes the remedy or procedure for enforcing the right or liability, resort must be had to that particular statutory remedy before seeking the discretionary remedy under Article 226. The law is also well settled that a petition under Article 226 should not be entertained unless the statutory remedies are ill-suited to meet the demands of an extraordinary situation. Hence, the contention of the petitioner that the existence of an alternate remedy is no bar to exercise the power under Writ jurisdiction is satisfactorily hopeless. Any grievance of the petitioner with regard to violation of principles of natural justice also can be agitated under Section - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28818 WP No. 38950 of 2025 7-I of the Act by filing an appeal. Hence, the Writ Petition is liable to be rejected. Counsel for the petitioner has cited decision referred to supra, but I do not think that the law is in doubt. Each decision turns on its facts. The present case is also tested in light of the aforesaid decision. 5. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is rejected. SD/- (JYOTI M) JUDGE SS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 41