IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No 4420 of 2010 1 Bihar State Cooperative Land Development Bank Limited Bihar & Jharkhand, Budh Marg, P S – Kotwali, District – Patna through its Managing Director 2 Board of Trustees (Provident Fund Trust) Bihar State Cooperative Land Development Bank Limited, Bihar & Jharkhand, Budh Marg, P S – Kotwali, District – Patna through its Member and General Secretary of the Employees Union - Petitioners Versus 1 Union of India through its Secretary, Ministry of Labour and Employment, 120 Shram Shakti Bhawan, New Delhi – 110 001 2 Sri Samrendra Chatterjee, Central Provident Fund Commissioner, 09th Floor, Mayur Bhawan, Cannaught Circles, New Delhi – 01 3 Sri P C Pati, Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan, R Block, Road No 6, Patna 4 Sri S K Singh, Regional Provident Fund Commissioner – II & Recovery Officer, Employees Provident Fund, Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan, R Block, Road No 6, Patna 5 Sri Rajni Kant Sinha, Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan, R Block, Road No 6, Patna - Opposite Parties ----------- 3 03.11.2010 This contempt application has been filed for initiating contempt proceedings against the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Bihar, Patna for disobeying the order passed by this Court in the earlier writ petition as between the parties. The dispute related to exemption from the provisions of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 on the Bank constituting a Trust for the said purpose. The Provident Fund authorities did not permit the same and, thus, the dispute and the writ petition. This Court directed, by the order in the writ proceedings, both parties to sit down together and sort out the issue once and for all. Mr Y V Giri appearing for the petitioners in this contempt petition submits that as against the spirit of the order passed in the writ petition, the Commissioner has moved only to scuttle the whole process and only because no order was being passed and contempt petition had been filed, mala fide proceedings have been taken 2 to attach all Bank accounts, thus, paralysing the Bank itself. In my view, order having been passed, it is open to the petitioners to challenge the same in a writ petition. Learned counsel points out that in fact a writ petition has been filed. In my view, the remedy of the petitioners, if any, lies in the writ petition so filed and not by way of contempt even if it is a matter of mere delay. With this observation, this application stands disposed of. M.E.H./ (Navaniti Prasad Singh)