1 Rp195-10 dmt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION REVIEW PETITION NO. 195 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 6820 OF 2005 Maharashtra State Co-operative Bank Ltd., .. Petitioner Vs. The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner/ Recovery Officer & Anr. .. Respondents Mrs. Varsha Palav for review petitioner. Mr. Suresh Kumar with Mr. Deepak Rai, for respondents. CORAM: B. H. MARLAPALLE & U. D. SALVI, JJ. NOVEMBER 29, 2010. P.C. We have heard Mrs. Palav, the learned counsel for the Applicant Bank. 2. By our order dated 11.10.2010 the praecipe filed on behalf of the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, SRO, Aurangabad, was allowed and the said respondent was granted leave to withdraw a sum of Rs. 1,07,06,698/-. By this application, the Applicant Bank states that the 2 Rp195-10 said amount was not due and recoverable atleast upto 22.01.2010 when the Aurangabad Bench of this Court passed an order and Mr. Choudhary, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent stated before the Aurangabad Bench that the recovery amount was Rs. 5,83,22,342/- 3. In the affidavit in reply filed by Mr. Eknath Sukhdeo Gaikwad, Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organization, Aurangabad it has now been contended that the total recovery as against the Applicant Bank was Rs. 6,70,88,699/-. However, Mr. Suresh Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent could not point out the recovery notice for the axcess amount and Mrs. Palav, the learned counsel appearing for the Applicant Bank denies to have received any such notice. The affidavit in reply filed by Mr. Gaikwad admits that the E.P.F. Organization, Aurangabad has received an amount of Rs. 5,83,22,342/- against the provident fund dues from the Applicant Bank on 20.7.2010 and if that be so, the praecipe which was pending before this Court did not survive. However, Mr. Suresh Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent did not bring the said fact to our notice and now he states that certain other recoveries are still pending. The provident fund authorities may have their remedies under the Provident Fund Act and 3 Rp195-10 the Scheme thereunder to proceed against the Applicant Bank for other provident fund dues recoverable, if any. 4. Hence, this application succeeds and the same is hereby allowed. The order passed by us on 11.10.2010 is hereby recalled. However, we clarify that the respondent authorities are not prevented from taking steps for additional provident fund recoveries by following due process of law against the Bank. 5. Let the papers be forwarded to the Aurangabad Bench of this Court forthwith. In the meantime, the applicant is allowed to withdraw the amount deposited by it with the Registry and with interest, if any. (U.D. SALVI, J.) (B. H. MARLAPALLE, J.)