Telangana High Court
M/S. Pennar Industries Limited vs Regional Provident Fund ... on 5 March, 2026
Author: Nagesh Bheemapaka
Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT
HYDERABAD
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
WRIT PETITION No. 6025 OF 2025
05.03.2026
Between:
M/s Pennar Industries Limited,
Rep. by its Chief Human Resources Officer-cum-
Authorised Signatory
Dr. O. Satyanarayana Rao & another
.. Petitioners
And
Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II(Exemption),
And another
..Respondents
O R D E R:
Petitioners state that the 1st Petitioner is a company deemed to be registered under the Companies Act and is engaged in the business of manufacturing various engineering and allied products in its units situated all over India and it was exempted under the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short, 'the Act'), bearing Code No. AP/PTC/6330.
21.1. Petitioners state that the 1st Petitioner is a 45-year- old company running its own Provident Fund Trust through its Trustees under the name and style of NSL PF Trust No.6330, which is the 2nd Petitioner. The said Trust was duly approved by the EPF Authorities and since its inception, it maintained its activities with due diligence, without any issue, and has served all its members to their satisfaction without any complaint of any nature.
1.2. In accordance with the provisions of the EPF & MP Act, 1952, the 2nd Petitioner resolved vide Trustees' Resolution dated 10.02.2023 to surrender the exemption granted to the Trust and to transfer the management of Provident Fund accounts to the statutory authorities, namely the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Patancheru. Petitioners state that pursuant thereto, all details were transferred to the said Authority with effect from 01.03.2023 vide letter dated 16.02.2023, and from that date onwards, the PF subscriptions of all NSL Trust members were continuously remitted to the statutory authorities without any default.
1.3. Petitioners state that after resolving to surrender the exemption, the 2nd Petitioner approached the authorities 3 concerned seeking guidance with regard to the process of surrendering the Trust's past accumulations of its members and also sought clarification regarding surrender of the invested funds of the NSL PF Trust in various Government bonds, mutual funds and other securities. The 1st Respondent, through departmental officials, furnished information vide letter dated 09.03.2023 specifying the required documentation and procedure. Accordingly, the 2nd Petitioner submitted the Trustees Resolution and other relevant documents to the 1st Respondent vide letter dated 10.03.2023. The Petitioners further state that the 1st Respondent issued another letter dated 29.03.2023 providing further details regarding surrender of the Trust and its properties.
1.4. Petitioners contend that after gathering the required information and understanding the formalities, the process took approximately two to three months as the 2nd Petitioner was advised by the Provident Fund Department authorities to liquidate all invested amounts in Government securities, banks and other instruments and thereafter deposit the consolidated amount into the account of the PF authorities. Meanwhile, the PF authorities issued another letter dated 09.05.2023 requiring 4 the 2nd Petitioner to provide the statement of past accumulations within 30 days and to deposit 100% of the past accumulations within 15 days thereafter. In response thereto, the 2nd Petitioner submitted its reply dated 30.05.2023 along with statements of past accumulations and the minutes of the Trustees' meeting dated 27.05.2023.
1.5. Due to the statutory formalities involved and the process of liquidation of investments, the entire procedure took around three and a half months. It is stated, ultimately, the 2nd petitioner surrendered the past accumulated funds amounting to Rs.5,09,32,844/- towards PF contributions together with interest on contributions amounting to Rs. 16,76,400/- for the period from April 2023 to July 2023, vide Demand Draft dated 21.07.2023, and submitted the same on 04.08.2023 along with all relevant details, income and expenditure statements and balance sheets, and requested cancellation of the exemption granted to the 1st petitioner.
1.6. It is contended, as per the instructions of the PF Department to deposit all past accumulations in cash, the 2nd petitioner encashed all deposits, securities and bonds. On account of premature encashment of fixed deposits, securities 5 and bonds invested in various banks, the face value could not be recovered and the Trust suffered a total loss of Rs.17,11,584/- due to realization of a lesser amount than the face value. During the period from 01.04.2023 to 31.07.2023, owing to reduction in interest accruals consequent upon encashment of deposits and bonds, the Trust realized interest of only Rs.8,08,872/-. However, the interest payable on members contributions for the said period amounted to Rs. 16,76,400/-. In order to ensure that the members received full statutory interest, the differential amount was paid from and out of the surplus funds of the Trust. Bank charges of Rs.15,753/-were incurred for obtaining demand draft of Rs.5,09,32,844/, thus, a total of Rs.8,83,341/- was adjusted from and out of the surplus amount of the Trust.
1.7. Petitioners contend that the 1st Respondent was aware of the above facts through continuous correspondence and clarifications submitted by the 2nd petitioner, including replies to audit queries raised from time to time. The 1st Respondent accepted the final transfer of Trust funds amounting to Rs.5,09,32,844/- towards past accumulations. Thereafter, the 1st Respondent initiated proceedings under 6 Sections 70 and 14B of the Act alleging delay in deposit of accumulations. The Petitioners state that upon bringing to the notice of the Authority that interest had already been deposited upto date, the 1st Respondent passed order dated 02.01.2024 under Section 7Q treating the interest payable as nil. The Petitioners further state that vide order dated 04.01.2024 under Section 14B, damages of Rs.13,76,583/- were imposed for alleged delay in depositing the accumulations. 1.8. Petitioners submit that the 1st Petitioner challenged Section 14B order before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Hyderabad by filing EPF Appeal No.6 of 2024 under Section 7-1 of the Act. By order dated 02.04.2024, the CGIT granted stay of all further proceedings subject to deposit of 10% of the damages imposed, and that the said amount was duly deposited. The Petitioners submit that the appeal is presently pending before the CGIT. In the said circumstances, and as an afterthought, the 1st Respondent started raising further queries despite the Petitioners having complied with all procedures, submitted independent audit reports and provided clarifications from time to time. Petitioners state that there was absolutely no 7 loss to any member and that entire accumulation amounts were deposited.
1.9. Petitioners state that the 1st Respondent issued notice dated 15.01.2025 demanding Rs.27,94,055/- comprising:
(i) Rs.17,11,784/- towards loss in sale of bonds; (ii) Rs.8,83,341/- towards expenditure over income including Rs.15.753/-bank charges; (iii) Rs.1,83,303/- towards alleged bank charges for the year 2021-2022; (iv) Rs.74/- towards bank charges for the year 2022-2023; and (v) Rs.15,753/-towards bank charges for the year 2023-2024. The Petitioners contend that the amount of Rs. 1,83,303/- was in fact paid towards surcharge imposed by the PF Department vide two separate orders in the year 2021-2022 for alleged deviation in investment of Trust funds during 2019 and 2020, but was inadvertently reflected as bank charges. The claims made in the notice dated 15.01.2025 are baseless and mischievous, as the amounts were paid from and out of the surplus and reserve funds of the 2nd Petitioner Trust and there was no loss to any statutory interest payable to members. The employer is not liable to reimburse the said expenditure or bond loss, as the same were validly adjusted from Trust surplus.8
1.10. Petitioners state that the 1st Petitioner submitted representation dated 20.01.2025 clarifying that amounts were paid from Trust surplus and reserves. Without issuing any further notice or affording opportunity of hearing, the 1st Respondent issued prohibitory order dated 17.02.2025 under Section 8-F of the Act directing the 2nd respondent bank to remit Rs.27,94,055/- from the account of the 1st petitioner. It is further stated, the 1st Respondent issued another demand notice dated 17.02.2025 directing payment of Rs. 16,76,460/- towards interest on the ground that the same was paid from surplus and reserve funds of the Trust. The said amount was already deposited along with total accumulations and it includes Rs.8,67,588/- (i.e., Rs.8,83,341/-minus Rs.15,753/-) which was already claimed in the notice dated 15.01.2025 and also forms part of the impugned prohibitory order, thereby demonstrating non-application of mind and double claim. 1.11. Once the order dated 02.01.2024 under Section 7Q treated the interest payable as 'nil', the 1st Respondent cannot reopen the issue and issue a fresh demand dated 17.02.2025 for Rs. 16,76,460/-. Such action amounts to reopening concluded quasi-judicial proceedings and is illegal and 9 untenable. Petitioners contend that loss of Rs. 17,11,784/- in encashment of securities occurred solely due to premature encashment necessitated by surrender of exemption and was beyond the control of Petitioners, therefore, adjustment from surplus of the Trust was legal and justified. It is contended, recovery notices contain double claims including Rs.15,753/- towards bank charges and Rs.8,67,588/- towards interest, which are errors apparent on the face of record and reflect mechanical and high-handed action without proper basis. 1.12. Petitioners state that amount of Rs.1,83,303/- was paid as surcharge pursuant to orders of the PF Department for alleged deviation in investment during 2019-20 and was wrongly described as bank charges due to oversight, and that without considering these facts, the 1st Respondent issued the impugned notices and prohibitory order. Petitioners state that the impugned prohibitory order dated 17.02.2025 under Section 8-F for Rs.27,94,055/- and the demand notices dated 15.01.2025 for Rs.27,94,055/- and dated 17.02.2025 for Rs.16,76,460/- are illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice and liable to be set aside.
101.13. Petitioners contend that no notice of hearing was afforded prior to issuance of the impugned prohibitory order and demand notices, despite surrender of Trust funds and payment of past accumulations on 04.08.2023, therefore, the impugned action is in gross violation of principles of natural justice.
2. By order dated 03.03.2025, impugned prohibitory order dated 17.02.2025 and demand notice dated 15.01.2025 and 17.02.2025 are suspended, subject to the condition of petitioners depositing 50% of the demanded amount, pursuant to the prohibitory order dated 17.02.2025 within four weeks from that day and in default, the interim order should stand vacated.
3. Respondent No. 1 filed counter contending that the 1952 Act and the Schemes framed thereunder are enacted to provide social security in the form of Provident Fund, Pension and Insurance to employees covered under the Act and that Respondent is charged with enforcement of the statute for the benefit of employees of private and public undertakings and for rendering social security services to members of the fund constituted under the Act.
113.1. It is contended that M/s Pennar Industries Limited bearing EPF Code No. AP/PTC/6330 was covered with effect from 01.08.1981 as an exempted establishment and exemption was surrendered with effect from 01.03.2023. An exempted establishment is required to strictly comply with the conditions subject to which exemption is granted, including investment of funds as per Government-approved pattern, and employer is obligated to make good any losses suffered by the fund along with bearing all incidental charges and expenses. The establishment voluntarily resolved to surrender the exemption with effect from 01.03.2023 vide resolution dated 10.02.2023 and agreed to abide by all the terms and conditions governing surrender of exemption. Upon such request, the office of the Respondent consented to surrender of exemption and assumed responsibility for providing social security benefits to the members of the Trust with effect from 01.03.2023. 3.2. Upon verification of records, it was observed that surplus amount of Rs.8,83,341/- was utilized for payment of interest on contributions for the period from 01.04.2023 to 31.07.2023; Rs.17,11,584/- shown as bond loss was apportioned from surplus; Rs.1,83,303/- towards bank charges 12 and other charges for 2021-22, Rs.74/- towards bank charges for 2022-23 and Rs.15,753/- towards bank charges for 2023-24 were paid from and out of the corpus as on 31.03.2023. Respondent asserts that such utilization of corpus and surplus is contrary to the provisions governing exemption and surrender and the action taken to recover the said amounts is legal and within the purview of law.
3.3. Respondent No. 1 further contends that under Paragraph 28(1)(ii) of the 1952 Act, upon cancellation of exemption, the Trust is required to transfer the total accumulations standing to the credit of subscribers within ten days in case of liquid cash in bank and within thirty days in case of securities. The 2nd Petitioner transferred the last accumulations of Rs.5,09,32,844/- only on 21.07.2023, which included interest of Rs. 16,76,460/- for the period from 01.04.2023 to 31.07.2023, and that there was delay in transfer of past accumulations. Due to such delay, the past accumulations were transferred along with interest which was credited from and out of the corpus as on 31.03.2023, which according to Respondent is against the provisions applicable upon surrender of exemption. On verification of balance sheets, 13 it was noticed that interest of Rs. 16,76,460/- was paid from the corpus fund of the Trust and not by the employer. 3.4. Respondent No. 1 states that similarly, the bond loss of Rs.17,11,584/-and bank charges of Rs.15.753/- were paid from the Trust's surplus and reserves. The Respondent relies upon the Standard Operating Procedure on management and regulation of EPF exemption to contend that any loss to the fund arising out of fraud, defalcation, wrong investment decision or for any other reason shall be borne by the employer and not by depletion of corpus or surplus of the Trust. It is therefore contended that action taken to recover the loss to the Trust and to the beneficiaries is lawful. While passing orders under Sections 70 and 14B of the Act, it was initially assumed that interest amount was paid by the employer and not by the Trust. However, upon subsequent verification of documents submitted during the process of surrender of exemption, it was noticed that interest of Rs.16,76,460/- was paid from the corpus fund of the Trust. Accordingly, action was initiated to recover the loss caused to the Trust and to its beneficiaries. 3.5. Respondent No. 1 reiterates that the Act is a social security legislation and that any action taken by the 14 Respondent is in accordance with the provisions of the Act and for the benefit of the workmen. There is no mention by Petitioners of refund of the amounts of Rs.8,83,341/-, Rs.17,11,584/-, Rs.1,83,303/-, Rs.74/- and Rs.15,753/- to the account of the 2nd Petitioner Trust and that any loss to the Trust and incidental charges should be borne by the 1st Petitioner establishment.
3.6. Respondent No. 1 relies upon an undertaking dated 17.05.2024 allegedly submitted by the employer stating that establishment shall "recoup loss against the liability incurred by the NSL PF Trust during the process of migration of PF Account from NSL PF Trust to Government PF Account." In view of the said undertaking, recovery of amounts in question from the employer is tenable and sustainable. It is also stated, letters dated 13.11.2024 and 25.11.2024 were issued advising Petitioners to submit clarifications regarding utilization of surplus amount of Rs.27,94,055/- for payment of interest and bank charges. As the reply submitted by the Trust was not in accordance with the provisions of the Act, the office proceeded to issue notice dated 15.01.2025 advising remittance of Rs.27,94,055/-. As no remittance was made and clarifications 15 were not satisfactory, prohibitory order dated 17.02.2025 under Section 8F of the Act was issued to recover Rs.27,94,055/- representing surplus/reserve utilized for recouping bond loss, bank charges and related items.
3.7. Respondent No. 1 further contends that separate letter dated 17.02.2025 was issued demanding payment of Rs. 16,76,460/- towards interest for the period from 01.04.2023 to 31.07.2023, which according to Respondent had been paid from the corpus fund due to delay in deposit of past accumulations. It is stated, representation dated 20.01.2025 submitted by Petitioners was not in accordance with the provisions of the Act and therefore recovery proceedings were initiated. Petitioners are misleading the Court in stating that there was no loss to any member of the Trust, and that as per the balance sheets, the Trust utilized corpus to recoup bond loss, bank charges and interest for the period 01.04.2023 to 31.07.2023, which is contrary to the provisions and terms governing exemption. It is asserted that had such amounts not been drawn from corpus, the Trust would have been in a position to declare a better rate of interest.
163.8. Respondent No. 1 further contends that upon surrender of exemption, total surplus amount at the credit of corpus was required to be transferred to EPFO and the Trust failed to transfer the surplus, instead, utilizing it towards interest and adjustment of bond loss. Accordingly, recovery was initiated to secure transfer of the actual surplus amount required to be transferred to EPFO. The prohibitory order dated 17.02.2025 for Rs.27,94,055/- and the demand for Rs.16,76,460/- are both legal actions taken to recover surplus/reserve utilized by the Trust in violation of provisions and to ensure compliance with statutory requirements. 3.9. Respondent No. 1 further contends that as per the SOP governing exemption, any loss to the fund arising out of wrong investment decision or any other reason must be borne by the employer and that the employer is liable to recoup any loss occurring during the period of exemption. Utilization of corpus fund to recoup loss or pay surcharge is a violation of the provisions of the Act and Scheme. The Trust failed to invest monies as per the investment pattern issued by the Central Government and that surcharge was levied for deviation in investment. Such surcharge must be borne by the 1st Petitioner 17 establishment and that recovery action was initiated accordingly. Respondent No. 1 contends that Petitioners did not inform the department in the past two years that the amount of Rs.1,83,303/- paid as surcharge for alleged violation of investment during 2019-20 was shown as bank charges and that this conduct amounts to misleading the Court by suppressing material facts.
4. Heard Sri Hariharan, learned counsel representing Sri Srikanth Hariharan, learned counsel for petitioner as well as Sri Vijhay K. Punna, learned Standing Counsel for Respondent No.1.
5. The essential factual matrix is largely undisputed. The 1st petitioner was an exempted establishment under the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short, "the Act"). Pursuant to the resolution dated 10.02.2023, Petitioners surrendered the exemption with effect from 01.03.2023. It is not in dispute that the past accumulations standing to the credit of the members of the Trust, including interest calculated for the period from 01.04.2023 to 31.07.2023, were transferred to the statutory 18 authorities in July/August 2023. The factum of transfer of accumulations is therefore not in controversy.
6. It is further not in dispute that subsequent to such transfer, proceedings were initiated under Sections 70 and 14B of the Act. By order dated 02.01.2024 passed under Section 70, the competent authority recorded that the interest payable stood satisfied and treated the interest liability as 'nil'. By a separate order dated 04.01.2024 under Section 14B, damages were levied for delay in transfer of accumulations, and it is stated that the said order is presently under challenge before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal. The existence of these prior quasi-judicial orders assumes significance in the present controversy.
7. The present Writ Petition challenges two sets of actions. The first is the prohibitory order dated 17.02.2025 issued under Section 8-F of the Act directing Respondent No.2- Bank to remit Rs.27,94,055/- from the account of the 1st petitioner. The second is the demand dated 17.02.2025 for Rs. 16,76,460/- towards interest alleged to have been adjusted from the corpus of the Trust. Petitioners contend that these demands are illegal, overlapping and issued without a proper 19 adjudication of liability. The controversy before this Court, therefore, is not merely one of arithmetical reconciliation or quantification of amounts. The more fundamental issue is whether the liability sought to be enforced through coercive recovery stood legally determined accordance with the Act and the Scheme framed thereunder so as to justify invocation of Section 8-F. In other words, the jurisdictional pre-condition for invoking the recovery mechanism is itself under scrutiny.
8. Section 8-F of the Act is a provision enabling recovery of amounts due from an employer by resort to attachment of bank accounts and other coercive measures. It is not a provision conferring adjudicatory power. It operates at the stage of enforcement and presupposes existence of an amount that has already become "due" under the Act. The expression "due" cannot be read in isolation; it necessarily implies a liability that has been determined, crystallized and quantified in accordance with law. Recovery machinery cannot be invoked to first determine and then enforce liability in one composite step. The statute contemplates a prior determination followed by recovery.
20
9. In the present case, Petitioners dispute the very foundation of the alleged liability. It is their consistent case that no member of the Trust suffered any loss, statutory interest was credited in full; bond loss, surcharge and incidental charges were adjusted from surplus; certain figures have been counted twice in the impugned notices; and earlier proceedings under Section 7Q culminated in a finding that interest payable was 'nil'. These contentions go to the root of liability and cannot be brushed aside as mere objections to recovery. On the other hand, Respondent No.1 contends that upon surrender of exemption, the entire corpus and surplus of the Trust were required to be transferred intact to the statutory authorities; any depletion of corpus or surplus on account of bond loss, surcharge or payment of interest must necessarily be recouped by the employer, and such liability arises from the statutory framework, the conditions governing exemption, Standard Operating Procedure and the undertaking allegedly furnished by the employer. Respondent No.2-Bank has acted pursuant to the prohibitory order issued under Section 8-F and has no independent adjudicatory role in the matter.
21
10. The rival submissions thus disclose a substantive dispute touching upon interpretation of the EPF Scheme, particularly Paragraph 28 relating to surrender of exemption; the legal consequences of delay in transfer of accumulations; the extent and nature of the employer's obligation to recoup alleged depletion of corpus; the legal effect of prior quasi-judicial orders under Sections 70 and 14B; and reconciliation of the figures forming part of the impugned demands. These are not issues that can be summarily resolved at the stage of recovery without a structured adjudication.
11. The material placed before this Court does not disclose that a comprehensive adjudicatory order determining such liability, after considering the objections and explanations of the Petitioners, was passed prior to issuance of prohibitory order dated 17.02.2025. The correspondence exchanged between the parties, including letters seeking clarification and advising remittance, cannot substitute a reasoned and speaking determination of liability under the Act. Administrative correspondence does not attain the status of adjudication unless it reflects application of mind to the objections raised and records reasons for acceptance or rejection. 22
12. Insofar as the demand of Rs.16.76,460/- is concerned, it is evident that the said amount formed part of the accumulations transferred and was taken into consideration in the earlier proceedings under Section 7Q wherein the authority recorded that interest payable was nil. While Respondent No.1 now contends that the present demand pertains not to non- payment of interest but to the source from which such interest was paid, namely the corpus of the Trust, that distinction itself requires legal examination. If the earlier order under Section 70 has attained finality on the question of interest payable, the authority must first determine, through an independent and reasoned process, whether recoupment from the employer is permissible notwithstanding such order. A concluded quasi- judicial order cannot be indirectly neutralized through coercive recovery without first addressing its legal implications.
13. It is a settled principle of administrative law that where a statute contemplates determination of liability followed by recovery, the stages cannot be telescoped. Recovery provisions are coercive in character and must therefore be strictly construed. The power to attach bank accounts under Section 8-F is drastic in nature and directly affects the financial 23 operations of an establishment. Such power must be exercised only after the liability is clearly adjudicated and communicated through a speaking order. Invocation of Section 8-F in the absence of such prior adjudication renders the action procedurally unsustainable.
14. At the same time, this Court is conscious that the Act is a beneficial social welfare legislation intended to safeguard the interests of employees. The authorities are entrusted with the responsibility of ensuring that the fund is not prejudiced and that any loss occasioned to it is made good. The question whether, in the facts of the present case, the employer is legally-bound to recoup the alleged depletion of corpus is a matter that falls within the statutory domain of the competent authority. This Court, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, does not undertake a detailed examination of accounting entries or substitute its own assessment for that of the statutory authority on matters requiring factual reconciliation.
15. The infirmity in the impugned action, therefore, lies not in the existence of jurisdiction in Respondent No.1 to examine the issue of recoupment, but in the manner of exercise 24 of that jurisdiction. The liability sought to be enforced has not been crystallized through a reasoned adjudicatory order dealing with the objections raised by the Petitioners, reconciling the figures, and addressing the effect of prior proceedings under Sections 7Q and 14B. In the absence of such determination, resort to recovery under Section 8-F is premature.
16. In such circumstances, this Court holds that the prohibitory order issued under Section 8-F cannot be sustained in law. However, this Court refrains from expressing any conclusive opinion on the merits of the rival claims regarding liability, as such adjudication must be undertaken by the competent authority in accordance with the statutory scheme, after affording due opportunity to the Petitioners and recording clear findings supported by reasons.
17. For the foregoing reasons, the Writ Petition is disposed of with the following directions:
(i) The prohibitory order No. TS/PTC/Exem/6330/8F order/2025 dated 17.02.2025 issued under Section 8-F of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, pursuant to which Respondent No.2-Bank was directed to remit Rs.27,94,055/- is set aside.25
(ii) The demand notices dated 15.01.2025 and 17.02.2025 shall be treated as show cause notices for the purpose of adjudication.
(iii) Respondent No.1 shall, if necessary, issue a consolidated and comprehensive show cause notice clearly specifying the statutory provisions, scheme conditions, and factual basis on which the Petitioners are alleged to be liable to recoup the amounts in question, within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
(iv) Petitioners shall submit their detailed objections, along with supporting, documents, within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of such notice
(v) Respondent No.1 shall thereafter afford reasonable opportunity of personal hearing to the Petitioners and pass a reasoned and speaking order, strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Scheme, within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of the Petitioners' objections.
(vi) Until such adjudication is completed and a fresh order is passed, no coercive steps shall be taken against the Petitioners.
Respondent No.2-Bank shall act only in accordance with any final determination so made.
17.1. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the alleged liability, and all contentions 26 of the parties are left open to be urged before the competent authority. No costs.
18. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
-------------------------------------
NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J 05th March 2026 ksld 27