1 2026:CGHC:17124 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPL No. 67 of 2022  Nagar Palika Parishad Bhatapara Through Its Chief Dmuncipal Officer, District Baloda Bazaar Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. Union Of India Through Its Secretary, Ministry Of Labour And Enmployment, Govt. Of India, Shram Shakti Bhawan Rafi Marg, New Delhi. 2. Employees Provident Fund Organization, Thorugh Its Regional Provident Fund Commissione, Bolck -D, Scheme -32, Indira Gandhi Vyawasayik Parisar, Pandri, Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3. Assessment Officer, Employees Provident Fund Organization, Block-D, Scheme-32, Indira Gandhi Byawasayik Parisar, Pandri, Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Vaibhav Shukla, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Abhishek Banjare, CGC For Respondents No. 2&3 : Mr. Vinay Pandey, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order On Board 15.4.2026 1) By way of this petition, petitioner has sought following reliefs:- (i) That the Hon'ble Court may issue appropriate writ quashing the impugned order dated 30.04.2022 passed by 2 Respondent No. 2 (Annexure P/1 Colly) in Diary No. 503/2016 and 504/2016. (ii) That the Hon'ble Court may issue appropriate writ directing the Respondents to decide the matter afresh after granting reasonable and proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. (iii) Pass any other order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice. 2) Mr. Vaibhav Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is a local body constituted under the provisions of Nagar Palika Adhiniyam, 1964. Proceedings under Section 7A of EPFMP Act, 1952 were initiated against the petitioner by respondent No. 2 on 30.5.2016. He further submits that due to Covid-19 outburst, petitioner was being provided video-conferencing link before every hearing to appear virtually before the authority concerned. He contends that both the cases were listed on 19.4.2022 where petitioner appeared virtually and thereafter cases were set for hearing on 28.4.2022 but on the said date, neither virtual link was provided suo-moto by the respondent No. 2 nor same was provided on specific request of the petitioner vide e-mail dated 28.4.2022. He further contends that subsequently on 30.4.2022, the respondent authority passed the final order in both the proceedings bearing Diary No. 50./2016 and 504/2016 without hearing the petitioner in complete violation of provisions contained in Section 7A(3) of EPFMP Act, 1952. He argues when there is a violation of the principles of natural justice or the provisions of law 3 have not been complied with, the writ petition would be maintainable and the alternative remedy would not be a bar in entertaining the writ petition. In support thereof, reliance has been placed on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the matters of M/s Magadh Sugar & Energy Ltd Versus State of Bihar & Ors.1. He prays to quash the order impugned. 3) On the other hand, Mr. Vinay Pandey, Advocate appearing for the respondents No. 2 and 3 submits that as many as 55 opportunities were provided to the petitioner to place on record relevant documents. He further submits that on 19.4.2022, petitioner appeared before respondent No. 2 virtually and thereafter cases were fixed for final hearing on 28.4.2022 but on the said date, no one appeared on behalf of petitioner and thereafter orders impugned were passed. He contends that there is efficacious alternative remedy available to petitioner according to the provisions of Section 7(I) of EPFMP Act, 1952, therefore this petition is not maintainable and deserves to be dismissed. 4) Mr. Abhishek Banjare, CGC appearing for the respondent No. 1 would support the contention made by Mr. Pandey. 5) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6) It is not in dispute that there is efficacious alternative remedy available to petitioner according to the provisions of EPFMP Act, 1. 2021 SCC Online SC 801 4 1952. However, it appears that petitioner appeared before respondent No. 2 on 19.4.2022 through video-conferencing and both the cases were set for final hearing on 28.4.2022. On the said date, petitioner made request to provide video-conferencing link to appear virtually but to no avail and the order impugned was passed on 30.4.2022. Thus, it is abundantly clear that opportunity of hearing was not afforded to petitioner before passing the order impugned. 7) At this stage, it would be apropos to refer to the judgment of the Apex Court in M/s Magadh Sugar (supra), wherein the Apex Court in paragraph 19 of the said judgment observed as under: 19. While a High Court would normally not exercise its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution if an effective and efficacious alternate remedy is available, the existence of an alternate remedy does not by itself bar the High Court from exercising its jurisdiction in certain contingencies. This principle has been crystallized by this Court in Whirpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trademarks, Mumbai and Harbanslal Sahni v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Recently, in Radha Krishan Industries v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors a two judge Bench of this Court of which one of us was a part of (Justice DY Chandrachud) has summarized the principles governing the exercise of writ jurisdiction by the High Court in the presence of an alternate remedy. This Court has observed: "28. The principles of law which emerge are that: (i) The power under Article 226 of the Constitution to issue writs can be exercised not only for the enforcement of fundamental rights, but for any other purpose as well; 5 (ii) The High Court has the discretion not to entertain a writ petition. One of the restrictions placed on the power of the High Court is where an effective alternate remedy is available to the aggrieved person; (iii) Exceptions to the rule of alternate remedy arise where (a) the writ petition has been filed for the enforcement of a fundamental right protected by Part III of the Constitution; (b) there has been a violation of the principles of natural justice; (c) the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction; or (d) the vires of a legislation is challenged; (iv) An alternate remedy by itself does not divest the High Court of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution in an appropriate case though ordinarily, a writ petition should not be entertained when an efficacious alternate remedy is provided by law; (vi) When a right 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 invoking the discretionary remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution. This rule of exhaustion of statutory remedies is a rule of policy, convenience and discretion; and (1998) 8 SCC 1 (2003) 2 SCC 107 2021 SCC OnLine SC 334 (vi) In cases where there are disputed questions of fact, the High Court may decide to decline jurisdiction in a writ petition. However, if the High Court is objectively of the view that the nature of the controversy requires the exercise of its writ jurisdiction, such a view would not readily be interfered with." Keeping in view the aforesaid settled legal position coupled with the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the case of 6 the petitioner falls in the exceptions carved to the rule of alternate remedy by the Apex Court mentioned supra and thus, this Court has the jurisdiction to adjudicate the instant writ petition. 8) In view of the discussion made herein-above, the order dated 30.4.2022 passed by respondent No. 2 in Diary No. 503/2016 and 504/2016 is hereby quashed and writ petition stands allowed. Respondent No. 2 is directed to provide reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and make all endeavors to conclude the proceedings within period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE A j i n k y a Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2026.04.16 11:02:10 +0530