MS MAXIMA SOLUTIONS v. REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER II
WPMS/432/2026 · 2026-02-25
Pankaj Purohit
body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 4997 (UTT) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 4997 (UTT) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
2026:UHC:1262 1
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition Misc. Single No. 432 of 2026
25 February, 2026
M/s Maxima Solutions
--Petitioner
Versus
Regional Provident Fund Commissioner II and Anr. --Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. B.D. Pande and Mr. Nishant Garkoti, learned counsel for petitioner. Mr. Rajesh Sharma, learned counsel for respondents.
Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral)
By means of the present writ petition, petitioner has sought for following reliefs:- I. To issue writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the recovery dated 09.01.2019 (not served upon the petitioner) and recovery order dated 03.02.2026 issued by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner II, Regional Office, Dehradun, (Annexure No.1), for recover of Rs.19,17,659/- on account of non-deposit of EPF contributions attributed to the contractor. II. It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to direct the immediate de-freezing and restoration of the Petitioner’s bank account No.6618002100001209, thereby permitting the Petitioner to operate the same and carry out its lawful business transactions without any hindrance. III. Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction directing the concerned authorities of the Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation to afford the Petitioner a fresh and reasonable opportunity of hearing, and to adjudicate the matter afresh in accordance with law and in compliance with the principles of natural justice. IV. Grant interim protection from coercive recovery proceeding considering financial hardship. Issue any other writ, order or direction, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.
2026:UHC:1262 2
2.
Assessing Authority/Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II, Dehradun has passed a judgment and
order dated 09.01.2019 against the petitioner under Section 7A of The Employees’ Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) and fastened a liability of Rs.19,17,659/- on the petitioner for non deposit of EPF contribution by the Contractor engaged by the petitioner.
3.
It is submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that petitioner has never been issued any notice of the proceedings by respondent No.1-Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II, Dehradun and the order has been passed behind its back.
4.
It is further submitted by him that he came to know about the said order only when the recovery order has been passed by the same Authority on 03.02.2026.
5.
It is further contended by learned counsel for petitioner that since the petitioner has never been issued any notice of the said proceedings, the recovery order has been passed behind his back and it is against the principal of natural justice.
6.
Per contra, learned counsel for respondents submits that this argument cannot be accepted for the reason that the said order has not been annexed by the petitioner in the present writ petition, therefore, at this stage, it cannot be said as to whether the notices have been served upon the petitioner concerned or not.
7.
Further, at the same time, it is submitted by
learned counsel for respondents that against the order dated 09.01.2019 passed by respondent No.1, petitioner has got a statutory remedy of filing an Appeal before the learned Tribunal constituted under the provisions of
2026:UHC:1262 3 Section 7-I of the Act.
8.
Having considered the rival submissions of the
learned counsel for parties and having perused the averment made in the writ petition, the present writ petition is disposed of finally and it is provided that the petitioner may file an Appeal under the provisions of section 7-I of the Act, before learned Tribunal i.e. Central Government Industrial Tribunal, within a period of 15 days from today. Only for a period of 15 days, the recovery proceedings initiated against the petitioner shall be kept in abeyance.
9.
Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
25.02.2026 PN