Allahabad High Court

M/S MAA KHANDWARI PG COLLEGEversusUNION OF INDIA AND 6 OTHERS

Decided: 19 April 2026
Bench: VINOD DIWAKAR

Holding

The court stayed the coercive steps and permitted operation of the petitioner's bank account pending the outcome of the appeal.

Summary

The petitioner, M/s Maa Khandwari PG College, challenged an order dated 02.01.2026 that froze its bank account, alleging lack of notice, violation of natural justice, and that it had already complied by depositing Rs.11,00,000 as ordered in a 2023 judgment. The petitioner argued that coercive recovery measures should be deferred pending a pending appeal before the appellate authority. The court noted the substantial compliance and the pendency of the appeal, and held that coercive steps should not be taken until the appeal is decided. Accordingly, the court stayed the freezing order, allowed the petitioner to operate the account, and directed the appellate authority to decide the appeal within two weeks. The petition was disposed with these directions.

Issues considered

Whether the freezing of the petitioner's bank account without prior notice violates principles of natural justice.
Whether coercive recovery proceedings should be stayed pending the resolution of a pending appeal.
Whether the deposit of Rs.11,00,000 in compliance with a prior order suffices to stay the impugned order.

Subjects

bank account freeze
natural justice
coercive recovery
stay order
pending appeal
Provident Fund
compliance

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

WRIT - C No. - 13225 of 2026

M/S Maa Khandwari PG College
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
Union Of India And 6 Others
.....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Devesh Tripathi, Sandeep Pandey, Sunil
Kumar Tripathi
Counsel for Respondent(s) : A.S.G.I., Arvind Nath Agrawal, Ashish
Agrawal, Gaurav Gautam, Jagdish
Pathak, Om Prakash Gupta, Shrey Singh

Court No. - 37
HON'BLE VINOD DIWAKAR, J.

1. Heard Shri Sunil Tripathi, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Shri
Sandeep Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Shri Jagdish Pathak,
learned counsel for respondent nos. 3, 4, and 5, and perused the record.

2. The present petition has been filed assailing the impugned orders dated
02.01.2026, whereby the petitioner's bank account has been freezed,
resulting in substantial hardship, as the petitioner is unable to carry on day-
to-day affairs and meet essential expenses.

3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned
action is arbitrary and legally unsustainable. It is contended that the
petitioner has already deposited a sum of Rs.11,00,000/- in compliance with
the order dated 21.03.2023 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in
Writ-C No.8705 of 2023. It is further contended that no prior notice was
issued to the petitioner, nor was any communication served by email as
recorded in the impugned order. The findings returned by the Regional
Provident Fund Commissioner-II are thus alleged to be perverse and
unsupported by any material on record, amounting to a violation of the
principles of natural justice.

4. Learned Senior Counsel has also placed reliance on decisions of the
Calcutta High Court in M/s. Basirhat Food Supply Co-operative Society Ltd.
and Ors. v. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and Ors. (2026)
LLR 348 and Kerala High Court in Kerala State Co-operative Coir
WRIC No. 13225 of 2026
2

Marketing federation v. The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner and
Another (2025) LLR 462 to submit that during the pendency of an appeal,
coercive recovery proceedings ought ordinarily to be deferred, so as to
preserve the efficacy of the appellate remedy.

5. Having considered the rival submissions and upon perusal of the record, it
is evident that the petitioner has made substantial compliance by depositing
Rs.11 Lakhs. The issues raised in the present petition are also subject matter
of a pending appeal before the competent appellate authority.

6. In such circumstances, and in the interest of justice, the petition is
disposed of with the following directions: (i) The appellate authority shall
consider and decide the petitioner's pending appeal expeditiously, preferably
within a period of two weeks from the date of production of a certified copy
of this order, after affording due opportunity of hearing to all concerned
parties, (ii) Till the appeal is decided, no coercive steps shall be taken
against the petitioner pursuant to the impugned order dated 02.01.2026, (iii)
In the event the appeal is not decided within the aforesaid period, the
operation of the impugned order dated 02.01.2026 shall remain stayed till
the final adjudication of the appeal, (iv) The freezing of the petitioner's bank
account effected pursuant to the impugned order shall remain in abeyance,
and the petitioner shall be permitted to operate the said account, subject to
the outcome of the appeal.

April 20, 2026
Anil K. Sharma
(Vinod Diwakar,J.)

Digitally signed by :-
ANIL KUMAR SHARMA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…