1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 7676 OF 2008 Gajendrasing s/o Narayanrao Patil age 71 years, occ. agriculturist r/o Plot no. 77, Zilla Peth, Opposite Civil Hospital, Jalgaon Tq. & Dist. Jalgaon .. PETITIONER VERSUS The Assistant Provident Commissioner, Recovery Officer, Sub-Regional Office, Nashik, Employees Provident Funds Organization Siub-Regional Office, P-11, Bhavishya Nidhi Bhavan M I.D.C. Area, Satpur, Nashik Dist. Nashik .. RESPONDENT Mr. P.R. Patil, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K.B. Chaudhari, Standing Counsel for respondent. ===== CORAM : R. M. BORDE, J. DATE : 3 rd November, 2009 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1 Heard. 2 Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, 2 the matter is taken up for final disposal at admission stage. 3 Petitioner is ex-Chairman of Sant Muktabai Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. Respondent initiated proceedings in respect of recovery of provident fund dues payable by the sugar factory. The liability arrived at in respect of provident fund dues is stated to be more than Rs.50,00,000/-. The impugned order which is subjected to challenge in this petition is one passed by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner and Recovery Officer, Nasik on 3-12-2008 directing issuance of warrant against the petitioner for recovery of dues payable by Karkhana to the tune of Rs.57,66,349/-. It is the contention of the petitioner that the sugar factory is under liquidation and the State Government has appointed liquidator who has taken over of the affairs of the Karkhana. Liquidator is appointed by the State Government in exercise of powers conferred under the provisions of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act and, in view of appointment of the liquidator, the managing committee ceases to exist. Petitioner as such is ex-Chairman of the Karkhana and not incharge of the affairs. Respondent no. 1 initially issued an interim order on 4-9-2008 in respect of recovery of provident funds. Petitioner caused appearance through the Managing Director of the karkhana before the Provident Fund Commissioner. The Managing Director 3 had tendered reply before the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner in response to the notice dt. 17-10-2008 issued in respect of recovery of provident fund dues. However, inspite of extending information in respect of appointment of liquidator, the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, proceeded to issue recovery order against the petitioner. Order passed by the respondent on 3-12-2008 which is impugned in this petition is obviously without application of mind to the record of the proceeding. Order has been passed by the respondent in mechanical manner and overlooking the record of the case which is required to be quashed and set aside. 4 After presentation of the petition, this court directed issuance of notice to the respondent on 28-12-2008. In response to the notice, the respondent has caused appearance. Copy of the communication dt. 22-9-2009 issued by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner is placed on record wherein it has been noted that the order under challenge is kept in abeyance until further order. In the facts and circumstances enumerated above, infact the order ought to have been withdrawn by the issuing authority. Instead of directing withdrawal of the order respondent no. 1 has kept the same in abeyance and has confirmed view that the orders passed by him are without application of mind to the record of the case. The 4 attitude of the respondent in persisting with his erroneous stand is not proper. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it proper to quash the impugned order passed by respondent on 3-12-2008. Writ petition is therefore allowed. Rule is therefore made absolute in terms of prayer clause ‘A’. No costs. ( R. M. BORDE, J.) dyb/office/wp7676.08.odt