Challenge to arrest warrant rendered infructuous upon recall; court mandates expeditious conclusion of inquiry.

The petitioner establishment challenged an order dated 23.03.2026 and summonses issued by the Regional Provident Fund (RPF) Commissioner.

The dispute originated from an inquiry under Section 7A of the EPF Act for the period of February 2003 to July 2003.

The petitioner alleged that despite submitting all documents in 2005 and the matter being reserved for final orders by the CGIT, Lucknow in 2022, the RPF Commissioner reopened the inquiry and issued a warrant of arrest for the non-production of documents.

The petitioner contended these coercive steps were mala fide and lacked jurisdiction.

During proceedings, the respondents informed the court that the warrant of arrest had been recalled on 30.03.2026.

1. Whether the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner possesses the jurisdiction to issue a warrant of arrest under Section 7A of the EPF Act or Section 32 of the CPC.

2. Whether the challenge to the warrant of arrest survives subsequent to its recall by the issuing authority.

Section 7A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, specifically noting the limitation on powers under sub-section (3A) regarding coercive measures.

Section 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) as invoked by the Commissioner.

Binding precedent established by a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Vinod Tiwari, which settled the limits of the authority's power to issue arrest warrants in such inquiries.

The court evaluated the petitioner’s claim that the RPF Commissioner acted ultra vires by issuing a warrant of arrest, noting that Section 7A(3A) of the EPF Act and the Vinod Tiwari precedent restrict such authority.

Upon being informed by the respondent that the warrant was voluntarily recalled on 30.03.2026, the court reasoned that the specific grievance regarding the arrest warrant no longer required adjudication on merits.

Addressing the broader context of the 23-year-old litigation, the court determined that the interests of justice required a final resolution rather than a mere dismissal.

It balanced the respondent's claim of non-cooperation against the petitioner’s claim of document submission by creating a structured path for the conclusion of the inquiry.

Consequently, the petition was disposed of with directions.

The court directed the petitioner to submit any outstanding documents required for the inquiry.

It further ordered the competent authority to decide the matter expeditiously and strictly in accordance with the law after providing the petitioner with a due opportunity for a hearing.