IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA MISC.CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 75 OF 2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 594 OF 2004 M/S. V. M. SALGAOCAR AND BROS. PVT. LTD. ... Applicant Versus THE ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER AND ANR., ... Respondents Mr. Vijay Palekar, Advocate for the Applicant. Mr. P. P. Singh, Advocate for the Respondents. Coram:- N. A. BRITTO, J. Date:- 19th September, 2008 P.C.:- Heard learned Counsel on behalf of both parties. By the present application, the Applicant/Petitioner seeks to refund a sum of Rs.13,22,926/-. Mr. P. P. Singh, learned Counsel on behalf of the Respondents submits that the said refund may not be granted to the Applicant since the Respondents have filed a Writ Petition No.559/2008 challenging the Order dated 26-11-2007 passed by the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi. It may be stated that in the absence of the Presiding Officer of the said Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal that the Applicant/Petitioner had filed Writ petition No.594/2004 and on 29-12-2004 this Court was pleased to grant a stay of the order passed by the Provident Fund Commissioner on the condition that the Applicant/Petitioner deposits 50% of the amount which was determined by the said Regional Fund Commissioner. That is how 50% of Rs.26,45,851/- came to be deposited by the Applicant/Petitioner. After the constitution of the said Tribunal, the Applicant has approached the said Tribunal against the said order of the Commissioner and now the said order of the Commissioner has been set aside. That being the position, I do not think that any purpose would be served by not allowing the Applicant/Petitioner to collect the amount deposited by it since as on today the order of the Commissioner is not in force. Application therefore is allowed. The sum of Rs.13,22,926/- with accrued interest, if any, shall be refunded to the Applicant/Petitioner. Application disposed of. Needless to say that such refund will always be subject to the Writ Petition. N. A. BRITTO, J. RD.