HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

Writ Petition Misc. Single No. 2255 of 2024

20 August, 2025

Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner --Petitioner

Versus

Allahabad Bank and Others --Respondents ----------------------------------------------------------------------

Presence:-

Mr. Ravi Sehgal, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Mr. Ajay Singh Bisht, learned counsel for respondent

Nos.1 and 2.

Mr. Amar Murti Shukla, learned counsel for respondent

No.3.

Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral)

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. By means of the present writ petition, petitioner has put to challenge the impugned order dated 26.09.2023 passed by learned Presiding Officer, CGIT/ EPFAT, Lucknow in Appeal No.56 of 2019 Allahabad Bank Vs. APFC, Dehradun and Ors., whereby, the said appeal was allowed and the order dated 22.10.2019 passed by learned Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner (Compliance), Dehradun was set aside and the matter was remanded back to APFC (Compliance), Dehradun to issue fresh notices in response to the summons dated 22.02.2016, to

respondents.

3. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No.4-M/s Coronet Labs Private Limited is an establishment covered under the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter to be referred to as ‘the Act’) under allotted Code No.UK/34351. As per the grievances raised from the employees of the said establishment, the

establishment failed to deposit the EPF dues after deducting the same from their salary. The establishment failed to remit the Provident Fund Contribution and allied dues within stipulated time period as per Sections 6, 6A and 6C of the Act and further failed to deposit the administrative charges as per Para 38 of the Scheme. Thus, an inquiry under Section 7A of the Act was initiated by the petitioner-Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Dehradun against the EPF Contribution, allied dues and administrative charges for the period from September 2014 to January 2016 vide summon No.56402 dated 22.02.2016. During the inquiry, Area Enforcement Officer of the Department submitted its report dated 27.07.2018. It came to light that respondent No.1-Allahabad Bank initiated proceedings under the SARFESI Act, 2002 against the establishment for its failure to repay the loan. Thereafter, the establishment was seized and taken over by the respondent No.1 and put to auction on 15.11.2016. Then, respondent No.3- M/s Shivalik Remedies Pvt. Ltd. purchased the said establishment vide E-Auction on 27.12.2016. During the inquiry, respondent Nos.1, 3 and 4 appeared and made representations before the Assessing Officer as per the provisions of the Act. Petitioner in exercise of powers under Section 7A of the Act passed a reasoned and speaking order dated 22.10.2019, which was assailed by the respondent No.1 by filing an appeal under Section 7-I of the Act before the learned CGIT/EPFAT, Lucknow in Appeal No.56 of 2019. Learned CGIT/EPFAT, Lucknow vide its order dated 26.09.2023 allowed the said appeal and set aside the order dated 22.10.2019 passed by learned Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner (Compliance), Dehradun and remanded the matter back to APFC(Compliance), Dehradun for issuance of fresh notices.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted on the last date that the impugned order dated 26.09.2023 passed by the learned Appellate Court/ CGIT/EPFAT is erroneous and suffers material irregularity and is liable to be quashed.

5. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 submitted on the last date that the present writ petition is not maintainable as it involves a judgment and order passed by a quasi judicial authority being challenged by another quasi judicial authority.

6. Thereafter, this Court vide order dated 19.08.2025 had made a query to learned counsel for the petitioner whether the present writ is maintainable or not and fixed the matter for today i.e.20.08.2025.

7. Today, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the present writ petition is ma