Disposed¶33

Sri Sriranga v. Shanbhag v Regional / Employees Provident Fund Commissioner

Karnataka HC17 Nov 2025WP/22702/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Delay in EPF Section 7-A proceedings; mandamus to Regional / Employees Provident Fund Commissioner, Bengaluru to decide Case No.BG/BNG/15310/24 (Annexure-A) within three months; employer M/s. Arya Bhavan Sweets; Article 227 writ; no merits decided; WP No. 22702 of 2025 (L-PF); NC: 2025:KHC:46964; Justice Jyoti M; 17 November 2025.

What did the court decide?

Mandamus issued directing the respondent – Authority to consider the petitioner's Section 7-A petition (Case No.BG/BNG/15310/24 vide Annexure-A) in accordance with law, if not already considered, within three months from receipt of certified copy of the order; no opinion expressed on merits. ¶33

Sri Sriranga v Shanbhag Vs Regional / Employees… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶33

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondent Authority should be directed by way of a writ of mandamus to dispose of / consider the petitioner's pending Section 7-A petition under the EPF & MP Act, 1952 (Case No.BG/BNG/15310/24 vide Annexure-A).

¶25

Court's answer

Taking note of the pendency of the Section 7-A petition before the Authority, the Court issued a Mandamus directing the respondent – Authority to consider the petition in accordance with law, if not considered as of today, within three months from receipt of certified copy of the order.

¶31

Ratio / Principle

The Writ Petition is disposed of; consequently, pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of and interim direction, if any, stands discharged.

¶33

Key takeaways

The Court expressly did not express any opinion on the merits of the case.obiter¶31

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (Article 227, Constitution of India) — High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru, decided 17-11-2025 by Jyoti M, J. Petitioner Sriranga V. Shanbhag sought a writ of mandamus directing the Regional / Employees Provident Fund Commissioner, Bengaluru (respondent No.1) to dispose of his pending petition under Section 7-A of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, registered as Case No.BG/BNG/15310/24 vide Annexure-A, arising against M/s. Arya Bhavan Sweets (respondent No.2). Taking note of the pendency, the Court directed the Authority to consider the petition in accordance with law, if not already considered, within three months from receipt of certified copy of the order, without expressing any opinion on merits. Writ petition disposed of; pending interlocutory applications disposed of and interim directions, if any, discharged.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:46964 WP No. 22702 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M WRIT PETITION NO. 22702 OF 2025 (L-PF)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. SRIRANGA V.SHANBHAG S/O. LATE VISHNU SHANBHAG AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, R/AT NO.9, 2^ND FLOOR, 2^ND MAIN ROAD, 2^ND CROSS, KENCHENAHALLI, RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 098.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. ASHOKA T., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

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

¶13

REGIONAL / EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, NO.13, RAJA RAMMOHAN ROY ROAD, RICHMOND CIRCLE, BENGALURU - 560 025 REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER

¶14

M/S. ARYA BHAVAN SWEETS, K.G.ROAD, SANTHOSH SHOPPING COMPLEX, L.G.CIRCLE, BENGALURU – 560 009 REP. BY SHRI SUBASH AGARWAL

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI. M.PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R1)

¶17

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

¶18

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:46964 WP No. 22702 of 2025

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER:

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

Sri.Ashoka.T., counsel for the petitioner and

¶24

Sri.Pradeep.M., counsel for respondent No.1 have appeared person.

¶25

The captioned Writ Petition is filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent – Authority to dispose of the case in No.BG/BNG/15310/24 vide Annexure-A as expeditiously as possible.

¶26

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

¶27

The grievance of the petitioner is that he has filed a petition under Section 7-A of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 before the respondentAuthority and the same has not been considered as of today. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶28

Taking note of the pendency of the petition before the Authority, this Court deems it proper to issue a Mandamus

¶29

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:46964 WP No. 22702 of 2025

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

directing the respondent - Authority to consider the petition, in accordance with the law, if not considered as of today, within three months from the receipt of certified copy of this order. This Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.

¶32

6. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is disposed of .

¶33

Because of disposal of the Writ Petition, pending interlocutory applications if any are disposed of and interim direction if any stands discharged.

¶34

SD/(JYOTI M) JUDGE

¶35

KMV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29

Sri Sriranga v. Shanbhag v Regional / Employees Provident Fund Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Sriranga v. Shanbhag v Regional / Employees Provident Fund Commissioner

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

Sri M C Gangadhara Vs Sri. B. Kumara Swamy

Ramachandrappa Vs Renukamma

Sri M Srinivasa Vs Smt Sarojamma

Sri M S Shashikumar Vs Labour Court

N T Rahamathulla Khan Associates Vs the Labor Officer

Sri. C. C Dhanagonda Vs the Assistant General Manager