Dismissed¶40

City Municipal Council Doddaballapura v. the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-Ii

Karnataka HC11 Nov 2025WP/21261/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court, Bengaluru; Justice Jyoti M; decided 11-11-2025; WP No. 21261 of 2022 (L-PF); City Municipal Council Doddaballapura v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II, EPFO Yelahanka; writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution; certiorari against EPFO Summons and Order dated 09.11.2020 (Annexure-A) and Order dated 29.07.2022 (Annexure-B); writ petition dismissed on ground of alternate remedy; appeal pending before Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Bengaluru in No. EPF/ITB-63/2022; Court expressed no opinion on merits; no quantum involved.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief; the Writ Petition was dismissed. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, were disposed of and any interim direction stands discharged. ¶40

City Municipal Council Doddaballapura Vs the… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No substantive relief; the Writ Petition was dismissed. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, were disposed of and any interim direction stands discharged.

¶40

Issue for consideration

Whether the Writ Petition seeking certiorari quashing of the Summons and Order dated 09.11.2020 (Annexure-A) and the Order dated 29.07.2022 (Annexure-B) should be entertained, or dismissed in view of the appeal already filed by the petitioner before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Bengaluru.

¶39

Court's answer

Since the petitioner had already filed an appeal before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Bengaluru, for redressal of its grievance, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of the available alternate remedy.

¶39

Key takeaways

The Court expressly recorded that it has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case, leaving the merits to the pending proceedings before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal.obiter¶39

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition No. 21261 of 2022 (L-PF) — City Municipal Council, Doddaballapura (represented by its Commissioner) v. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II, EPFO, Yelahanka, Bengaluru. Filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petition sought certiorari quashing of the Summons and Order dated 09.11.2020 (Annexure-A) and the Order dated 29.07.2022 (Annexure-B) passed by the respondent. At hearing, respondent's counsel, on instructions, submitted that the petitioner had already filed an appeal before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Bengaluru (No. EPF/ITB-63/2022) for redressal of its grievance. Holding that the petitioner had already pursued the alternate statutory appellate remedy, the Court (Hon'ble Ms. Justice Jyoti M) dismissed the Writ Petition by order dated 11.11.2025, expressly recording that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, were disposed of and interim directions, if any, stood discharged. No precedent was discussed; the dismissal rests solely on availability of the appeal before the CGIT.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:45707 WP No. 21261 of 2022

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 21261 OF 2022 (L-PF)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL DODDABALLAPURA, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT: NEAR BUS STAND, THIMMANAKUNTE, DODDABALLAPURA - 561 203, REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI.SURYANATH S.BHAT., ADVOCATE FOR SRI.KUMARA SWAMY.N.R., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by THEJAS KUMAR N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER-II, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION, REGIONAL OFFICE, YELAHANKA, NO.2, MARUTHI COMPLEX, 1^ST 'A' MAIN, HIG 'A' SECTOR, YELAHANKA NEW TOWN, BENGALURU - 560 064.

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

(BY SMT.SANDHYA JAMADAGNI., ADVOCATE)

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS.

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER:

¶19

¶20

NC: 2025:KHC:45707 WP No. 21261 of 2022

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

Sri.Suryanatha S.Bhat., counsel on behalf of

¶24

Sri.Kumaraswamy.N.R., for the petitioner has appeared in person.

¶25

Smt.Sandhya Jamadagni., counsel for the respondent has appeared through video conferencing.

¶26

The captioned Writ Petition is filed seeking following

¶27

reliefs:

¶28

(a) Issue an appropriate writ, order, or direction in

¶29

the nature of Certiorari quashing the Summons and Order dated 09.11.2020 passed by the respondent vide Annexure-A.

¶30

(b) Issue an appropriate writ, order, or direction in

¶31

the nature of Certiorari quashing the Order dated 29.07.2022 passed by the respondent vide Annexure-B.

¶32

Counsel for the respective parties urged several contentions. Heard the arguments and perused the Writ papers with care.

¶33

¶34

NC: 2025:KHC:45707 WP No. 21261 of 2022

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

4. Counsel Smt.Sandhya Jamadagni., on instructions

¶37

submits that the petitioner has filed an appeal before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Bengaluru in No.EPF/ ITB - 63/2022 for redressal of his grievance. Counsel, therefore, submits that the Writ Petition may be dismissed.

¶38

The oral submission made by counsel for the respondent is placed on record.

¶39

As the petitioner has already filed an appeal before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Bengaluru, for redressal of his grievance, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. This Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.

¶40

5. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is dismissed .

¶41

Because of dismissal of Writ Petition, pending

¶42

interlocutory applications if any are disposed of and interim direction if any stands discharged.

¶43

Sd/(JYOTI M) JUDGE

¶44

TKN,MRP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30

City Municipal Council Doddaballapura v. the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-Ii

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

City Municipal Council Doddaballapura v. the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-Ii

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Management of Festo India Private Limited Vs Sri. Chandraiah

State Bank of India Vs State Bank"S Staff Union (K)

The Management of M/S Vinayaka C N C Centre Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Workmen of Vinayaka C N C Centre Pvt. Ltd.

Karnataka Forest Development Corporation Ltd. Vs Karnataka Plantation Staff & General

Sri Mahadeva Vs the Department of Urban Development

Kanthamma Vs Union Bank of India