JUDGMENT Rajesh Shankar, J. - By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the proceeding initiated by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner (Compliance) E.P.F.O Regional Office, Ranchi under Section 7A of the Employees'' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (in short "the Act, 1952"). 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that he along with his brother namely Md. Sahid runs a small hotel on alternate month basis. The petitioner has engaged six employees in the said hotel and therefore, the said hotel does not come under the purview of Section 7A of the Act, 1952. However, ignoring the said fact, the respondent no.2 initiated a proceeding under Section 7A of the Act, 1952 against the petitioner. By way of an interlocutory application being I.A. No. 3814 of 2018, the petitioner has brought on record a copy of warrant of arrest issued by the respondent no. 2, vide letter no. 227 dated 16.04.2018 (Annexure-1 to the I.A. No. 3814 of 2018), which is beyond the jurisdiction of the respondent no. 2. 4. Mr. Rupesh Singh, learned counsel for the respondents, submits that if the petitioner has the factual plea that the said hotel is being run by him with his brother namely Md. Sahid on alternate month basis and the said hotel does not come under the ambit of Section 7A of the Act, 1952, he should have taken the said plea before the respondent no.2 in the pending proceeding. It is further submitted that the respondent-authorities appear to have treated the hotel run by the petitioner and his brother as single unit, which would be evident from the fact that a single provident fund code has been issued to the said hotel. 5. Be that as it may. The aforesaid factual dispute cannot be adjudicated in the writ jurisdiction of this Court. Accordingly, I am not inclined to entertain the present writ petition at this stage. However, the petitioner is directed to participate in the proceeding initiated by the respondent no.2 under Section 7A of the Act, 1952. The respondent no. 2, in turn, is directed to complete the proceeding and to pass the final order after considering the factual plea of the petitioner as well as verifying the records to be produced by him. The said proceeding shall be concluded by the respondent no. The respondent no. 2, in turn, is directed to complete the proceeding and to pass the final order after considering the factual plea of the petitioner as well as verifying the records to be produced by him. The said proceeding shall be concluded by the respondent no. 2 as expeditious as possible, preferably within a period of eight weeks from today. 6. Till the final order is passed by the respondent no.2 in the proceeding initiated under Section 7A of the Act, 1952, the warrant of arrest issued vide letter no. 227 dated 16.04.2018 by the respondent no. 2, shall remain in abeyance. 7. The writ petition is disposed of with aforesaid observation and direction. 8. I.A. No. 3814 of 2018 is also accordingly disposed of.