The TownversusRegional Provident Fund Commissioner I

                       Priyanka                                         14-WP-1393-2026.docx


                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                          CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                                          WRIT PETITION NO.1393 OF 2026


                       Talk of The Town                                         ...Petitioner
                                            V/s.

                       Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-I                 ...Respondent
                                                  ________________
                       Ms. Samiksha R. Kanani for the Petitioner.
                       Ms. Tanvi Purecha (through V.C.) for the Respondent.
          Digitally
          signed by

PRIYANKA
          PRIYANKA
          MADHAVRAO                                 ________________
MADHAVRAO KALE
KALE      Date:
          2026.09.01
          10:50:19
          +0530
                                                              CORAM: SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
                                                              DATED: 28 AUGUST 2026.
                       P.C.:


                       1)          The Petitioner challenges the order dated 3 January 2024
                       passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-I, rejecting the
                       Review Application preferred by the Petitioner under Section 7B of the
                       Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (EPF
                       Act).


                       2)          I have heard Ms. Kanani, the learned counsel appearing for
                       the Petitioner and Ms. Purecha, the learned counsel appearing for
                       Respondent-EPFO.


                       3)          It appears that the Petitioner was served with Notice under
                       Section 7A of the EPF Act. The proceedings under Section 7A remained
                       pending for 4 years and was adjourned on over 72 occasions. During the

                                                       Page No.1 of 4
                                                      28 August 2026
Priyanka                                         14-WP-1393-2026.docx


said period, Petitioner did not produce a single document in the enquiry
under Section 7A. After the final order was passed under Section 7A on
29 June 2023, the same was initially dispatched by RPAD, but the
premises of the Petitioner were found locked. Therefore, the order was
pasted on the premises of the Petitioner. Finally, on 7 December 2020,
the Director of the Petitioner Shri. Swapnil Hegde personally approached
the office and collected the order. Thereafter, what was done by the
Petitioner was to merely address a two page letter dated 25 December
2023 branding the same as Review Application under Section 7B of the
EPF Act.


4)          One of the reasons for which the Review Petition is rejected
is that the same was not filed in Form-9 of para 79A of the EPF Scheme.
However, the order dated 3 January 2024 also records detail reasons for
rejection of the Review Petition and the RPFC has not rejected the same
only on the ground that the same was not in the Form.


5)          Perusal of Form-9 of the EPF Scheme would indicate that,
there is requirement under column 6 to state main grounds on which
Application for review is made. Under Section 7B of the EPF Act, a review
can be filed only upon discovery of new or important matters or
evidence, which was not in the knowledge of the establishment or where
there is any mistake or error apparent on face of record in the order
sought to be reviewed. Therefore, it is necessary that in every Review
Application either, of the two grounds are specifically pleaded for
seeking review of order passed under Section 7A. In the present case,
perusal of letter dated 25 December 2023 would indicate that, Petitioner

                                Page No.2 of 4
                               28 August 2026
Priyanka                                          14-WP-1393-2026.docx


did not make out either of the two grounds for seeking review. Petitioner
merely stated that, the Director was suffering from ill-health and could
not participate in the proceeding. Willingness was shown to produce all
necessary registers and documents for the period of investigation.
However, along with the Review Petition not even a single document was
produced.


6)          Form-9 to para 79A is not an empty formality and it is
incumbent on Review Applicant to state the grounds on which review of
the order is sought. Even if one ignores the form of the letter dated 25
December 2023 and concentrates on its contents, it is difficult to hold
that any ground for review was pleaded by the Petitioner.


7)          Ms. Kanani, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner,
has submitted that, the Review Petition has been rejected without even
grant of an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner. She has relied on
first proviso to sub-Section (4)        of Section 7B in support of her
contention that review cannot be decided without grant of opportunity
of hearing. She has relied on Judgment of this Court in Writ Petition
No.5377 of 2023 dated 4 July 2023 in the case of J.M. Engineering vs.
Union of India & Ors and Deogiri Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Ltd vs.
Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner reported in 2022 (1) Mh.L.J. 259
in support of her contention that, it is impermissible to reject review
without grant of opportunity of hearing. In the facts of the present case,
I am not inclined to set aside the impugned order since Petitioner did
not make out any case for review in the letter dated 25 December 2023.
Merely addressing a letter branding the same as review without making

                                 Page No.3 of 4
                                28 August 2026
Priyanka                                          14-WP-1393-2026.docx


out a single ground of review does not mean that the authorities have to
spend time in granting opportunity of hearing to the party seeking
review. Therefore remanding the proceedings for re-hearing of the
review would be an empty formality.


8)          In the facts of the present case, the Petitioner did not avail
opportunities of appearing before the R.P.F.C. during 4 long years when
Section 7A enquiry was underway. He wrote a simple letter without
pointing out any error apparent on face of record in the order under
review. Now, it is orally sought to be contended by Ms. Kanani that no
opportunity was given to the establishment. However, this point was not
pleaded in the letter dated 25 December 2023.


9)          Considering the above position, in my view, no interference
is warranted in the impugned order.


10)         The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed.


11)         The amount deposited in this Court by the Petitioner in
pursuance of order dated 26 August 2025 is permitted to be withdrawn
by Respondent-EPFO along with accrued interest.


                                                 [SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]




                                Page No.4 of 4
                               28 August 2026