Disposed¶27

Zedking Security Services, Bbsr v. Epfo, Bbsr

Orissa HC15 Apr 2025WP(C)/4434/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

EPFO summons quashing writ disposed; Annexure-2 summons dated 12.03.2020; proceeding under EPF & MP Act; NHAI security personnel agreement 2012, extended 31.10.2014, closed 01.11.2014; petitioner unaware of summons; liberty to appear before Opposite Party No.2 within two weeks and file objection; final order after considering objection; Zedking Security Services Bbsr; Rule Nisi mandamus prayer; Aditya Kumar Mohapatra; 15.04.2025; WP(C) No.4434 of 2025; High Court of Orissa at Cuttack.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to the Petitioner to appear before Opposite Party No.2 within two weeks and submit his objection pursuant to the Annexure-2 summons, conditional on the proceeding being still pending with no final decision taken; Opposite Party No.2 thereafter to pass the final order after considering the objection. ¶27

Zedking Security Services, Bbsr Vs Epfo, Bbsr — Orissa HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶27

Issue for consideration

Whether a writ of mandamus should be issued quashing the summons under Annexure-2 dated 12.03.2020 issued by Opposite Party No.2 (EPFO). +1 more

¶19

Court's answer

Instead of issuing the mandamus quashing the Annexure-2 summons, the Court disposed of the writ application and granted the Petitioner liberty to appear before Opposite Party No.2 within two weeks and submit his objection pursuant to the summons.

¶26

Ratio / Principle

The liberty to appear and submit the objection is conditional upon the proceeding in which the Annexure-2 summons was issued being still pending and no final decision having been taken in the meantime.

¶26

Key takeaways

Once the Petitioner files his objection, Opposite Party No.2 shall pass the final order after taking the objection into consideration.ratio¶26

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Orissa High Court (A.K. Mohapatra, J.) disposed of WP(C) No.4434 of 2025 filed by Zedking Security Services, Bbsr seeking quashing of a summons dated 12.03.2020 (Annexure-2) issued by the Office of Opposite Party No.2 (EPFO) in a proceeding under the EPF & MP Act, connected with the petitioner's NHAI security-personnel agreement of 2012 (extended 31.10.2014, closed w.e.f. 01.11.2014). As the petitioner had not appeared pursuant to the summons for want of knowledge of it, the Court, rather than issuing the prayed mandamus, granted liberty to the petitioner to appear before Opposite Party No.2 within two weeks and submit his objection pursuant to the summons, conditional on the proceeding being still pending and no final decision having been taken meanwhile; Opposite Party No.2 was to pass the final order after taking any such objection into consideration. Urgent certified copy was ordered as per Rules.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.4434 of 2025

¶2

Zedking Security Services, Bbsr

¶3

..... Petitioner

¶4

Represented By Adv. - Lalatendu Samantaray

¶5

-versus-

¶6

EPFO, Bbsr & Anr.

¶7

.....

¶8

Opposite Parties

¶9

Represented By Adv. – Mr. Nayak, Adv. for EPFO

¶10

CORAM:

¶11

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA

ORDER

15.04.2025

Order No.

1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode).

¶16

Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned counsel for the EPFO-Opposite Parties. Perused the writ application as well as the documents annexed thereto.

¶17

The Petitioner has filed the present writ application with the following prayer:

¶18

“The petitioner, therefore, prays that this Hon'ble Court be graciously pleased to issue Rule Nisi calling upon the Opp. Parties to show cause as to why:-

¶19

(i) A writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ/writs shall not be issued quashing the summon under Annexure-2 in the facts and circumstances narrated above.

¶20

(ii) If the Opp. Parties fail to show cause or show insufficient cause the said Rule be made absolute;

¶21

Page 1 of 3.

¶22

(iii) And/or pass any other order(s)/Direction(s) as this Hon'ble Court thinks fit and proper.”

¶23

Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended that in the year 2012, the Petitioner-Organization entered into an agreement with the National Highway Authority of India (NHAI) for supply of security personnel to NHAI. The said agreement was extended on 31.10.2014. Finally, the agreement was closed w.e.f. 01.11.2014. While the matter stood thus, a summons was issued by the Opposite Party No.2-Office, under Annexure-2 to the writ application dated 12.03.2020. He further contended that, the issuance of the aforesaid summons against the Petitioner, was not within the knowledge of the Petitioner. Therefore, he could not appear before the Opposite Party No.2 pursuant to the aforesaid summons. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at this juncture further contended that, no final decision has been taken in the pending proceeding which was initiated under the EPF & MP Act. On such ground, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that since the issuance of the aforesaid summons to the Petitioner came to the knowledge of the Petitioner only recently, he is ready and willing to participate in the proceeding by filing his reply to the summons.

¶24

Mr. Nayak, learned counsel for the EPFO on the other hand contended that he has no instruction in the matter. He further contended that the summons under Annexure-2 was issued way back in the year 2020. Therefore, there is every likelihood that the main proceeding might have been disposed of in the meantime. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the EPFO contended that the present writ application is devoid of merit and accordingly the same should be dismissed.

¶25

Page 2 of 3.

¶26

Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties, on a careful examination of the background facts as well as the documents annexed to the present writ application and keeping in view the submissions of the learned counsel for the Petitioner that they failed to participate in the proceeding pursuant to the summons under Annexure-2 to the writ application as it was not within their knowledge, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the writ application by granting liberty to the Petitioner to appear before the Opposite Party No.2 within two weeks from today and submit his objection pursuant to the summons under Annexure-2 provided the proceeding in which the summons has been issued under Annexure-2 is still pending and no final decision has been taken in the meantime. In the event the Petitioner files his objection, it is needless to mention here that the Opposite Party No.2 shall pass the final order after taking into consideration the objection which is likely to be filed by the Petitioner pursuant to today’s order.

¶27

With the aforesaid observations/ directions, the writ application stands disposed of.

¶28

Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules.

¶29

( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge

¶30

Anil

¶31

Signature Not Verified Page 3 of 3.

¶32

Digitally Signed Signed by: ANIL KUMAR SAHOO Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 24-Apr-2025 11:27:35

Zedking Security Services, Bbsr v. Epfo, Bbsr

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Zedking Security Services, Bbsr v. Epfo, Bbsr

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

Susil Kumar Baral Vs Amit Kumar Garg,Ceo,Tpsodl,Ganjam

Dr. Swapna Sarit Vs State of Odisha

Muralidhar Sethi Vs Dipesh Patnaik, I.P.S.

Dillip Kumar Sahoo Vs Tpcodl Tp Central, Odisha Distribution Ltd., Bbsr

Narottam Dash Vs State of Odisha

Ranjit Kumar Khilar Vs State of Odisha