JUDGMENT : Ravi Krishan Kapur, J. 1. The petitioner challenges an order dated 6 July 2021 passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner –II under section 7-A of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (the Act) and the Rules framed thereunder. 2. Briefly, the petitioner is an enlisted contractor, inter-alia, engaged in providing engineering services at Port Blair. The petitioner is also an establishment under the Act. In terms of the Act, the petitioner was required and statutorily obliged to deposit contributions in respect of all its eligible employees on a monthly basis with the respondent authorities. 3. In view of the alleged failure of the petitioner establishment in complying with the prescribed mandatory obligations under the Act, the respondent no.1 had issued a show cause notice dated 19 December, 2018 requiring the petitioner to show cause as to why action should not be initiated in respect of the defaults committed by the petitioner. Thereafter, an Enforcement Officer visited the office of the petitioner and issued a spot notice on 17 July 2019 after inspection and verification of the relevant documents. Subsequently, the respondent authorities initiated an inquiry dated 3 March, 2020 under section 7-A of the Act to assess the large scale evasion for the period 1 April, 2016 to 31 March, 2019. On 11 March, 2020, the matter was heard when the petitioner was duly represented. The petitioner was also directed to file a Reply on 19 March, 2020 with all relevant documents. Subsequently, owing to the Pandemic there was a complete lockdown and the petitioner was unable to furnish the necessary information. By the impugned order, the respondent authorities have assessed dues aggregating to Rs.66,63,748/-payable by the petitioner. The impugned order records that the petitioner had failed to furnish the necessary information and records. 4. Being aggrieved by the order, the petitioner has filed this petition challenging the order dated 6 July, 2021 primarily on the ground that because of the Pandemic-Covid 19, the petitioner had been unable to furnish the necessary information as sought for by the respondent no.1. 5. It is contended that although the petitioner sought time and an opportunity to submit the relevant documents at the hearing dated 19 March, 2020, no such opportunity was afforded to the petitioner prior to the conclusion of the impugned proceedings. 5. It is contended that although the petitioner sought time and an opportunity to submit the relevant documents at the hearing dated 19 March, 2020, no such opportunity was afforded to the petitioner prior to the conclusion of the impugned proceedings. The petitioner was unable to provide such information because of the onset of the Pandemic and the consequential lockdown. Moreover, the petitioner contends that the Inspection Report relied on by the respondent authority was never served on the petitioner although by a letter dated 4 March, 2021, the petitioner had sought for a copy of the same. The petitioner had also furnished Form-11 for excluded employees which the respondent authorities have failed and neglected to take into account in passing the impugned order. In this background, the petitioner complains of violation of the principles of natural justice and failure to give a fair hearing and an adequate opportunity to the petitioner. 6. On behalf of the respondent authority it is submitted that, the petitioner was duly represented on all the dates of hearing and had adequate notice and sufficient opportunity to submit the relevant documents. In any event, the petitioner has an alternative remedy of appeal, under section 7-I of the Act which has not been exhausted. Hence, the writ petition is not maintainable. 7. Ordinarily, availability of an adequate and efficacious alternative legal remedy is a ground for the Writ Court to decline to exercise jurisdiction. Section 7-I of the Act provides for a statutory remedy of appeal against the impugned order. However, there are well-settled exceptions as to when the Writ Court would exercise its jurisdiction notwithstanding an alternative remedy. Such exceptional circumstances exist where the writ petitioner seeks enforcement of any fundamental right or where the action complained of is without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act has been challenged or where there is violation of principles of natural justice. It is implicit in the principle of alternative remedy that the Writ Court would have the authority to receive the petition but would exercise its discretion to not go into the merits of the matter unless it is demonstrated that the action complained of falls within any of the well-settled exceptions. It is implicit in the principle of alternative remedy that the Writ Court would have the authority to receive the petition but would exercise its discretion to not go into the merits of the matter unless it is demonstrated that the action complained of falls within any of the well-settled exceptions. [Whirlpool Corporation vs. Registrar of Trade Marks (1998) 8 SCC 1 , Nikhil Das vs. Central Bank of India 2009 SCC OnLine Cal 114; and Board of Trustees for the Port of Kolkata vs. Vijay Kumar Arya (2009) 2 CHN 274 ]. 8. In the given facts, it ex facie appears from the impugned proceedings that before passing of the impugned order, the petitioner had by a letter dated 10 March, 2021 sought for time to furnish relevant information. However, because of the Pandemic and the consequential lockdown the petitioner was unable to provide such information. This position continued and ultimately the respondent no.1 on 3 March, 2021 concluded the hearing and passed the impugned order. Moreover, no copy of the report dated 12 March, 2020 submitted by the Enforcement Officer was served on the petitioner. As such, the impugned order has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice and is liable to be set aside. 9. In view of the aforesaid and only on the ground that the petitioner was not afforded an adequate opportunity in view of the Pandemic, the impugned order is set aside. It is made clear that the Court has not gone into the merits of the case and the respondent authorities are directed to act strictly in accordance with law when granting a final opportunity to the petitioner. 10. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned order dated 6 July, 2021 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the respondent no.1 to decide the same within a period of one month from the date of communication of this order without giving any unnecessary adjournments to the petitioner. The respondent no.1 is also at liberty to decide the matter afresh without being influenced on the merits of this case. The prohibitory orders issued in terms of the impugned order shall also remain stayed until the final disposal of the proceedings. 11. With the aforesaid direction, WPA 193 of 2021 stands disposed of. All connected applications also stand disposed of as infructuous.