The main legal point established is that the petitioner should have invoked the provision of appeal provided under Section 7(I) of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, instead of directly filing the writ petition.

JUDGMENT :

1. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the final order bearing Order No. 10986 dated 24.09.2021 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition) passed by the respondent No.3 under Section 7A of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act, 1952’] whereby the said respondent has determined the dues against the petitioner to the tune of Rs.47,36,354/- for the period from 10/2017 to 02/2018. Further prayer has been made for issuance of direction upon the respondents not to execute the impugned order dated 24.09.2021. The petitioner has further prayed for quashing letter No. 13154 dated 10.02.2022 issued by the respondent No.3 to the Indian Bank whereby the order of attachment of the petitioner’s bank account has been passed under Section 8F(3) of the Act, 1952. It has also been prayed for issuance of direction upon the respondents to defreeze the bank account of the petitioner which has been freezed by the respondent No.3 even before passing the impugned order dated 24.09.2021 that too, in the year 2018 itself and after passing of the said order, an attachment order has been issued for attachment of the petitioner’s bank account maintained with the Indian Bank, Dhanbad Kutchery Road, Hirapur, Park Market, Dhanbad.

2. Mr. Sumit Prakash, learned counsel for the respondent-EPFO, raises preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of the present writ petition on the ground that the petitioner should have invoked the provision of appeal provided under Section 7(I) of the Act, 1952 against the impugned order dated 24.09.2021 passed by the respondent No.3 under Section 7A of the Act, 1952.

3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view that the petitioner has directly filed the present writ petition before this Court invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 24.09.2021 passed by the respondent No.3 under Section 7A of the Act, 1952, I am not inclined to entertain the same.

4. The present writ petition is accordingly dismissed as not maintainable at this stage.

5. The petitioner is however at liberty to take appropriate statutory recourse against the impugned order dated 24.09.2021 passed by the respondent No.3 as provided under law.