(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 5543 OF 1996 Milind Primary English School, Nagsen Van, Aurangabad, through its Head Mistress , Smt. Safiya w/o. Laxminarayan, R/o. Milind Primary English School, Nagsen Van, Aurangabad. .. Petitioner. versus 1. The Union of India, Through the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Bhavishya Nidhi Bhavan-34, Bandra (E), Bombay - 51. 2. The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Sub-Regional Provident Fund Office, "Bhavishya Nidhi Bhavan", Plot No.2, Town Centre, Commercial Area, CIDCO, New Aurangabad - 3. .. Respondents. ....................... Mr. A.R. Rathod, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. K.B. Chaudhary, Standing Counsel, for respondent nos.1 and 2. ........................ (2) CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & S.V. GANGAPURWALA, JJ. DATE : 17TH JUNE 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per B.R. Gavai, J.) : 1. The petitioner challenges the order of attachment of immovable property, dated 3rd December 1996, which came to be passed by the respondent no.2, since the petitioner had failed to pay the dues of the Provident Fund, as demanded by the respondent. 2. This Court, vide order dated 11th December 1996, had directed the respondents to open lock of the school, on condition that the petitioner deposits a sum of Rs. 5,000/- per month, with the respondent authorities, besides the deposit of employees' contribution and the employer's contribution. 3. The petitioner has challenged the order of attachment. However, the petitioner had accepted the order vide which it was held that the Provident Fund dues were liable to be paid by the petitioner. The same order is admittedly not challenged either before this court or any other forum. In that view of the matter, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. (3) 4. In the result, the petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. However, it is made clear that since the payment towards dues of the Provident Fund, for which an order of attachment was passed, are already paid in pursuance to the interim orders passed by this court, the said attachment order would no longer survive. There shall be no order as to costs. ( S.V. GANGAPURWALA ) ( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp5543