1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2155 OF 2007 Prafula Keshav Sukhtankar .. Petitioner Vs. The South Indian Co-operative Bank Ltd. & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.D.S.Chandanani for the petitioner Mr.Nitin Dhumal i/b Mr.N.N.Bhadrashetye for respondent nos.1 Mr.J.S.Saluja, A.G.P. for respondent nos.4 CORAM : J.N.PATEL CORAM : J.N.PATEL CORAM : J.N.PATEL & & & K.K.TATED, JJ. K.K.TATED, JJ. K.K.TATED, JJ. DATED : 4th AUGUST, 2008 DATED : 4th AUGUST, 2008 DATED : 4th AUGUST, 2008 P.C.: 1. Heard. 2. The petitioner has approached this court by invoking his extraordinary Jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus against the respondents to return amount of Rs.4,35,005/- with interest thereon at 2 the rate of 18% p.a. from 30th May, 2007 till its payment to petitioner and for pensionary benefits which became due and payable to the petitioner on his superannuation with ancillary benefits. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that he has joined respondent no.1 as its Chief Executive Officer on 16th October, 2000 and he having attained age of 60 years on 16h October 2003, he superannuated in the said post and on the said date he was entitled to pensionary benefits and return of provident fund credited to his provident account. 4. It appears that the respondent bank was not in sound financial condition and, therefore, an administrator came to be appointed by dissolving the board of Directors of respondent no.1. The petitioner alongwith other board of directors came to be arrested in C.R.No.103 of 2005 and C.R.No.417 of 2005 for having committed offences under sections 409, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 474(A) read with Section 120B of Indian Penal Code. 3 5. We are not concerned with the later part of the development in the case for the purpose of examining this petition. The question which has been raised before this court by the petitioner is as to whether the respondent bank can refuse to release the provident fund amount which is the subject matter of the petition in favour of the petitioner. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to the decisions in the case of UCO Bank and Anr. v. Rajinder Lal Capoor reported UCO Bank and Anr. v. Rajinder Lal Capoor reported UCO Bank and Anr. v. Rajinder Lal Capoor reported in AIR 2007 Supreme Court 2129 and Union of India in AIR 2007 Supreme Court 2129 and Union of India in AIR 2007 Supreme Court 2129 and Union of India V. Jyoti Chit Fund and Finance and others reported V. Jyoti Chit Fund and Finance and others reported V. Jyoti Chit Fund and Finance and others reported in AIR 1976 Supreme Court 1163 in AIR 1976 Supreme Court 1163 in AIR 1976 Supreme Court 1163 by stating that the authorities do not have any powers to deny provident fund dues, pensions and other retiral benefits which a person is entitled on retirement or otherwise. 7. In reply to the petition, it has been pointed out by the present Manager of the respondent bank that the petitioner had withdrawn huge amount by presenting various vouchers under 4 the pretext of making payment to Auditors and others which were actually not utilised and have given instances of how the monies have been withdrawn in cash by presenting vouchers which were drawn by the petitioner through the concerned clerk namely Ms.S.Selva Sharadha who has also filed her affidavit. In support of their contention, it is submitted that a sum of Rs.4,35,005/- was received from Provident Fund office and the same was credited to the account of the petitioner on 5.6.2007 and thereafter the same amount has been adjusted towards the withdrawal made by the petitioner which has been spelt out in the affidavit. Therefore, it is submitted that as the withdrawals have been made by the petitioner in cash, the same has been adjusted from his account where the provident fund dues were also credited. In the affidavit in rejoinder, the petitioner has disputed these facts stated in reply to the petition on affidavit filed by the Manager of the respondent nos.1 Bank. 8. In our view, this is not the case where this court should entertain the Writ Petition under 5 Article 226 of the Constitution of India as the petitioner has alternate remedy and he can very well approach Civil court in the matter as the issue is about adjustment of the dues of the petitioners from his account by the bank. 9. We make it clear that we have not dealt on the merits of the matter as to whether the petitioner’s claim of the provident fund survives which he is entitled to receive towards the provident fund dues though he has withdrawn cash from the bank more than the amount due and payable as provident fund. This issue forms the disputed set of facts and would require to be examined in debth before any decision can be taken and therefore, it requires adjudication by Civil court. 10 We, therefore, dismiss this petition with liberty to the petitioner to seek alternate remedy available to him under the law. ( J.N. PATEL, J ) ( J.N. PATEL, J ) ( J.N. PATEL, J ) 6 ( K.K. TATED, J ) ( K.K. TATED, J ) ( K.K. TATED, J )