: 1 : wp.859.2011 vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O.O.C.J. WRIT PETITION NO.859 OF 2011 Marathon Nextgen Reality Ltd. .. Petitioner V/s. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (II) and Recovery Officer & anr. .. Respondents Mr.V.P. Vaidya with R.N. Shah, Atman Mehta and Mr.Hemant Talekar for the Petitioner Ms.Nilam Jadhav I/b Suresh Kumar for the Respondent No.1 Mr.S.K.Talsania I/b M.P Bhagat for Resp. No.2 CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE & SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, JJ. DATED: SEPTEMBER 7, 2011 P.C.: 1. We have heard Mr.Vaidya, learned Counsel for the Petitioner. The recovery order u/s 14B of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 came to be passed against the Company on 14.10.2008 and subsequently on 25.3.2011, an order for recovery of interest u/s 7Q of the said Act came to be passed so as to issue the recovery certificate for execution. The officials of the Provident Fund Commissionerate visited the petitioner’s premises on 27.4.2011 and issued a visit note. It is in these circumstances that the Petitioner has approached this Court and while challenging the legality of the order dated 25.8.2011 has also brought in question the Constitutional validity of the section 7Q and section 14B of the : 2 : wp.859.2011 Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act. The petitioner has also questioned the validity of section 22 of Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985. We are not inclined to consider the challenge to the constitutional validity of section 7Q and 14B of the EPF Act and in our opinion, the constitutional validity of the said sections and section 22 of Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 have been gone into and the issue is no more res integra. 2. So far as the recovery order is concerned, the petitioner has an efficacious and alternative remedy of appeal before the appellate Tribunal established under the EPF Act and when such a statutory remedy of appeal is available, a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India need not be entertained, as per the settled legal position. Hence, the petition is rejected summarily. 3. However, the order of status quo will continue to operate for a period of two weeks from today so as to enable the petitioner to file an appeal before the appellate Tribunal and we make it clear that this order will have no bearing on the powers of the appellate Tribunal. (SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J.) (B.H. MARLAPALLE, J.)