Bombay High Court
M/S SANJEEVAN VIDYALAYA TRUSTversusTHE ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
- Bench
- SHAILESH P BRAHME
Holding
The writ petitions are dismissed as the matters are pending before the appropriate appellate forum.
Summary
The petitioner, M/s Sanjeevan Vidyalaya Trust, filed two writ petitions challenging orders made under Section 14B of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. The petitioner had already filed appeals (EPFA No.8 of 2026 and EPFA No.2 of 2026) before the appropriate appellate authority, but the presiding officer was unavailable. The respondents informed the court that the presiding officer would be available in Mumbai, and the appeals could be heard there. The court held that, given the pending appeals, the writ petitions were premature and should be dealt with by the appellate forum. Consequently, the court disposed of both writ petitions without adjudicating the merits.
Issues considered
- Whether the writ petitions are maintainable when the same relief is sought through pending appeals before the appropriate appellate forum
- Whether the High Court should entertain the writ petitions or refer the parties to the appellate authority
Legislation cited
Subjects
- writ petition
- jurisdiction
- appellate forum
- Employees Provident Funds Act
- procedural law
Judgment
901-WP-2172-2346-2026 (C).doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 2172 OF 2026
M/s Sanjeevan Vidyalaya Trust ...Petitioner
Versus
The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner ...Respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 2346 OF 2026
M/s Sanjeevan Vidyalaya Trust ...Petitioner
Versus
The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner
(compliances) Regional Pf Commissioner I ...Respondent
…..
Adv. M. S. Topkar a/w Adv. Bhargavi Patil, Adv. Neev Patil, for
Petitioner.
Adv. Smits Thakur (through V.C.), For Respondents.
…..
CORAM : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.
DATE : 17th JUNE, 2026.
P.C. :
Heard.
2. These petitions are preferred challenging the orders passed under
Section 14B of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous
Provisions Act, 1952. It is candidly stated in the petitions that the
petitioner has already preferred the appeals bearing EPFA No.8 of 2026
ZIP 1 of 2
901-WP-2172-2346-2026 (C).doc
and EPFA No.2 of 2026. However, the Presiding Officer is not available.
Therefore, these matters can not be dealt with.
3. The learned counsel for the respondents would inform that the
Presiding Officer will be available at Bombay on Monday and Tuesday
to deal with the appeals and the appeals preferred by the petitioner can
also be dealt with. In view of the statement made by the learned
counsel appearing for the respondent, instead of entertaining the writ
petitions, the parties are relegated to the appellate forum.
4. The petitioner shall be at liberty to take out its appeals in the
next week before the forum available at Mumbai.
5. The appellate forum is requested to consider the Appeal No.8 of
2026 and Appeal No.2 of 2026 as there is exigency in the matter.
6. Accordingly, both the petitions are disposed of.
[ SHAILESH P. BRAHME]
ZIP 2 of 2
Checking your session…