Dismissed¶26

Manmeet Kaur Jaspalsing Ghai v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and Another

Bombay HC27 Jan 2026WP/859/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Maintainability of writ petition under Article 227 against Section 14-B order of Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II; Section 7-I appeal limitation 60 days plus further 60 days (120 days); Rule 7 of Rules of 1997; Siddhi Engineering 2024 SCC Online Bom 44 followed; M/s Anchorage Manpower Writ Petition No.9047 of 2024 distinguished; Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU Kakinada; Electronics Corporation of India Ltd.; Panoli Intermediate; Phoenix Plasts; ONGC Vs. Gujarath Energy Transmission Corporation (2017) 5 SCC 42; Bombay High Court Aurangabad Bench; S.G. Chapalgaonkar; Manmeet Kaur Jaspalsing Ghai; writ petition rejected as not maintainable.

What did the court decide?

None; writ petition rejected as not maintainable. ¶26

Manmeet Kaur Jaspalsing Ghai vs Regional Provident… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; writ petition rejected as not maintainable.

¶26

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition under Article 227 challenging the order dated 09.07.2024 passed under Section 14-B of the Act of 1952 is maintainable, given that the petitioner failed to avail the statutory appeal remedy within the prescribed limitation of 60 days plus a further 60 days (120 days). +1 more

¶19

Court's answer

Since the petitioner approached this Court beyond 120 days (60 days plus further 60 days) without availing the Section 7-I appeal, the writ petition cannot be entertained; the extraordinary jurisdiction cannot be exercised disregarding the limited statutory period for redressal.

¶26

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner cannot take benefit of the Single Judge observations in M/s. Anchorage Manpower, because in that case the Section 14B order was passed without notice of the proceeding and the petitioner approached the High Court immediately upon gaining knowledge, which is not the position in the present petition.

¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench (S.G. Chapalgaonkar, J.): A writ petition under Article 227 challenging an order dated 09.07.2024 passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II under Section 14-B of the Employees’ Provident Funds And Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 was held not maintainable because the petitioner failed to avail the appeal remedy under Section 7-I of the Act of 1952 read with Rule 7 of the Rules of 1997 within 60 days or the further period of 60 days (120 days). Following the Division Bench decision in Siddhi Engineering (2024 SCC Online Bom 44) and the law laid down in Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada, the Court held that the extraordinary jurisdiction cannot be exercised once the limited statutory period is exhausted. The Single Judge observations in M/s Anchorage Manpower (Writ Petition No.9047 of 2024, decided 15.07.2024) were distinguished, as there the Section 14B order was passed without notice and the petitioner approached the High Court immediately upon knowledge. Writ petition rejected as not maintainable.

¶1

2026:BHC-AUG:4491

¶2

43-wp-859-2026.odt

¶3

(1)

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 859 OF 2026

¶6

Manmeet Kaur Jaspalsing Ghai VERSUS

¶7

Regional Provident Fund Commissioner And Another

¶8

Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Khonde Uday V Advocate for Respondent No.1 : Mr. Nitin K Choudhari

¶9

CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.

¶10

DATED : JANUARY 27, 2026

¶11

PER COURT :-

¶12

Heard.

¶13

The petitioner seeks to challenge order dated 09.07.2024 passed by Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II under Section 14-B of the Employees’ Provident Funds And Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short ‘Act of 1952’).

¶14

Learned advocate appearing for petitioner by relying upon observations of this Court in case of M/s Anchorage Manpower Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner in Writ Petition No.9047

¶15

of 2024 decided on 15.07.2024 submits that writ petition can be entertained against order passed under Section 14-B of the Act of 1952.

¶16

Per contra, learned advocate appearing for respondent no.1 relies upon judgment of Division Bench of this Court in case of

¶17

Siddhi Engineering Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II reported in 2024 SCC Online Bom 44 to contend that present petition

¶18

43-wp-859-2026.odt (2)

¶19

would not be maintainable since petitioner failed to avail remedy within limitation prescribed for filing appeal.

¶20

Having considered submissions advanced, it is apparent that impugned order has been passed on 09.07.2024 under Section 14-B of the Act of 1952. The petitioner had remedy of filing appeal under Section 7-I of Act of 1952 and Rule 7 of Rules of 1997. The petitioner could not file appeal within a period of 60 days or further period of 60 days (120 days) and now seeks to exhaust extra-ordinary remedy under Article 227 of Constitution of India. In similar circumstances, the Division Bench of this Court in case of Siddhi Engineering (supra) observed as under :

¶21

“11. The impugned order is passed on 30/09/2021 and this Petition has been preferred on 13/12/2023. Considering the law laid down in Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada (supra), just because the limitation period of 60 days and the further period of 60 days (120 days), is exhausted, that, this Court cannot exercise it’s extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has recorded in paragraph No.18 reproduced above that “the principle underlying the rejection of such argument by this Court would apply on all fours to the exercise of the powers of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.” 12. In paragraph 19 in Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court concluded that, the view taken by the Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Electronics Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. Union of India, (2018) SCC Online Hyderabad 21; the view of the Full Bench of the Gujarat High Court in Panoli Intermediate (India) (P) Ltd. Vs. Union of India, AIR (2015) Gujarat 97, and the view of the Karnataka High Court in Phoenix Plasts Co. Vs. CCE, (2013) SCC OnLine Karnataka 10432, are applied to the proceedings on fallacious premises. While concluding paragraph No.19, the Hon’ble Supreme Court holds that, if the Writ Petitioner chooses to approach the High Court within the

¶22

43-wp-859-2026.odt

¶23

(3)

¶24

limitation period, the said challenge could have been considered by the High Court. However, if the Writ Petitioner chooses to approach the High Court after expiry of the maximum limitation period of 60 days (120 days in case before us), the High Court cannot disregard the limited statutory period for redressal of the grievance and entertain the Writ Petition of such party as a matter of course, only because the appeal before the CGIT is barred by limitation. It is further held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that ‘doing so would be in the teeth of the principle underlying the (15) dictum of the three Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ONGC Vs. Gujarath Energy Transmission Corporation, (2017) 5 SCC 42’.”

¶25

In light of aforesaid exposition of law, since petitioner has approached this Court beyond 120 days, writ petition cannot be entertained. The petitioner cannot take benefit of observations of Single Judge of this Court in the case of M/s. Anchorage Manpower (supra). In that case, order under Section 14B was passed without giving notice of proceeding to petitioner. After getting knowledge of order, he had immediately approached High Court by filing writ petition. Such is not the case in present petition.

¶26

In that view of matter, writ petition stands rejected, as not maintainable.

¶27

(S.G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.)

¶28

Mujaheed//

Manmeet Kaur Jaspalsing Ghai v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manmeet Kaur Jaspalsing Ghai v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kishor Vasant Bacchewar and Another vs Subham Housing Development Finance Company Ltd. through Its Authorized Signatory

Shivaji Eknath Patil vs the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary and Others

Mayur Madhukar More and Others vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Ramrao Dattarao Kadam vs Dattarao Bapurao Kadam and Others

Shaikh Junaid Shaikh Masud and Others vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Amarnath Hanumanth Kandi vs Vijaya Kishan Chikayal and Others