IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No.3991 of 2026

12.02.2026 Between:

M/s. Hyderabad Media House Ltd., …Petitioner AND Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-I, Employees’ Provident Funds Organisation, Regional Office- Banjara Hills, Bhavishyanidhi Bhavan, Brahmanwadi, Begumpet, Hyderabad & 3 others …Respondents

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, to declare the action of the respondents in passing the orders under Sections 7Q and 14B of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and the consequential prohibitory order under Section 8F of the Act, freezing the bank account of the petitioner company, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice, and to set aside the same.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

3. Despite service of notice, there is no representation on behalf of the respondents.

4. On the previous occasion also, when the matter was taken up after lunch session, there was no appearance for the respondents. Even today, when the matter is taken up on a lunch motion, none appears on their behalf. Hence, the matter is taken up for disposal in their absence.

5. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that it is a media company engaged in news broadcasting and is covered under the provisions of the EPF Act. It is stated that due to severe financial constraints, there were certain delays in remittance of provident fund contributions, pursuant to which proceedings were initiated and orders came to be passed under Sections 7Q and 14B of the Act, 1952, followed by issuance of a prohibitory order under Section 8F freezing the bank account of the petitioner. The petitioner contends that the impugned action is arbitrary and has resulted in paralyzing its day-to-day functioning.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner had expressed willingness to liquidate the determined dues in 60 equal installments, the petitioner, upon instructions, now undertakes to clear the entire outstanding amount in 30 equal monthly installments without default. It is further submitted that an undertaking/affidavit to that effect shall be filed before Respondent No.4 within a time to be stipulated by this Court.

7. It is contended that the freezing of the bank account has virtually brought the operations of the petitioner company to a standstill and that the petitioner is ready and willing to comply with a reasonable installment schedule. It is therefore prayed that the prohibitory order be lifted, subject to payment of installments.

8. Having regard to the submissions made and considering the fact that the respondents have chosen not to enter appearance despite service of notice, this Court is of the view that an opportunity may be granted to the petitioner to clear the dues in installments, subject to strict compliance.

9. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to file an undertaking/affidavit before respondent No.4 within one (1) week from the date of receipt of copy of this order, undertaking to pay the entire outstanding amount determined under Sections 7Q and 14B of the EPF Act in 30 equal monthly installments and upon filing of the undertaking and payment of the first installment, respondent No.4 shall consider the same and release/de-freeze the bank account of the petitioner, subject to the petitioner strictly adhering to the installment schedule. In the event of default in payment of any one installment, it is open to the respondents to proceed in accordance with law, including revival of recovery proceedings, without further reference to this Court.

10. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the m