APHC010287722026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WRIT APPEAL NO: 686 of 2026 Bench Sr.No:-46 [3584] Seshaiah Nathani ...Appellant Vs. Employees Provident Fund Organization and Others ...Respondent(s) ********** Advocate for Appellant: J U M V PRASAD Advocate(s) for Respondent(s): T BALAJI (SC FOR EPFO) CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE LISA GILL SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN DATE : 14th July 2026 JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Challa Gunaranjan) Unsuccessful petitioner preferred present appeal assailing the dismissal of writ petition vide order dated 06.05.2026 passed in W.P. No.11379 of 2026. 2. Appellant has been assessed to liability by raising a demand for ₹5,17,640/- towards Employees' Provident Fund. The same was sought to be reviewed and as against the dismissal of such application, the appellant had earlier preferred W.P.No.24593 of 2017. The said writ petition stated to have been disposed of vide order dated 21.11.2025, in terms of orders dated 22.12.2021 passed in W.P.No.30077 of 2021. Vide aforesaid orders, the appellant had been relegated to avail statutory appeal under 2 HCJ & CGR, J W.A. No.686 of 2026 Section 7(A) of the Act before the appellate authority to be preferred within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the said order. The appellant, though stated to have filed appeal, the same could not be filed within time frame of two weeks, in that view of the matter, the appellate authority, by order dated 27.03.2026, dismissed EPF Appeal No.15/2026 and the connected interlocutory applications. Appellant chose to assail the same in W.P.No.11379 of 2006. 3. The learned Single Judge, having considered the matter on merits, found no reason to entertain the writ petition, inasmuch as, the appellant failed to avail the Appellate remedy within time frame provided under the order dated 21.11.2025. 4. Heard Sri J.U.M.V.Prasad, learned counsel appearing for appellant and Sri T.Balaji, learned counsel appearing for respondents. 5. Learned counsel for appellant tried to persuade us that the delay occurred in filing appeal before appellate authority was on account of not noticing the disposal of W.P.No.24593 of 2017, to buttress, he has taken us through the order dated 21.11.2025, which indicates that there was no representation for the writ petitioner on the said date. He further contended that the appellant cannot be left remediless and on mere technicalities, the appellant 3 HCJ & CGR, J W.A. No.686 of 2026 should not be denied opportunity for contesting the matter on merits. 6. It is an admitted fact that the appellant had invited order dated 21.11.2025, by which learned Single Judge, while disposing W.P.24593 of 2017, permitted the appellant to prefer appeal within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the order and that the appeal indeed came to be filed beyond the said period. 7. Further, it is also admitted fact that no steps have been taken to seek enlargement of time by filing appropriate application either before instituting the appeal or post facto. Therefore, both the Appellate Authority as well as learned Single Judge rightly refused to entertain subsequent proceedings solely for the reason that the appeal has been preferred beyond the time frame fixed. We see no reason to interfere with the said order. However, appellant is granted liberty to pursue remedies otherwise available in accordance with law. 8. With the above observation, the writ appeal stands dismissed. No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending in this case, if any, shall stand closed. LISA GILL, CJ CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J ss