1 W.P.No.4010/11 UNREPORTED IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.4080 OF 2011. M/s Jalgaon District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., through its Manager (Loan Recovery) Prakash S/o Baburao Patil, Age 56 years, Occ.Service, R/o 27, Ring Road, Tq. & Dist. Jalgaon. ... Petitioner. Versus 1. The Central Provident Fund Commissioner, Bhavishya Nidhi Bhavan, 14, Bhikaji Cama Palace, New Delhi. 2. The Assistant Provident Funds Commissioner, Officer (SRO), E.P.F.O. Sub-Regional Office, E-11, Bhavishya Nidhi Bhavan, MIDC Area, Satpur, Nasik-422 007. 3. Belganga Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd.,through its Chairman/Managing Director, Bhoras, Tq. Chalisgaon, Dist.Jalgaon. ... Respondents. ... 2 W.P.No.4010/11 Mr.V.R.Dhorde, advocate holding for Mr.R.N.Dhorde, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.K.B.Choudhari, advocate for the Respondent ... CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 16.06.2011. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard. 2. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned counsel, the petition is taken up for final hearing. 3. The present petitioner had filed an appeal before the Tribunal, challenging the assessment and the levy U/s 7-A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, against the establishment. 4. The Tribunal vide the impugned order directed the petitioner to deposit 40% of the amount as pre-deposit for hearing the appeal. The said order is assailed in the present Writ Petition. 3 W.P.No.4010/11 5. Mr.Dhorde, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the amount shown as dues by the Respondents is to the tune of Rs. 3,34,57,140/- (Rupees three crores thirty four lacs fifty seven thousand one hundred forty only). Vide the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.1831/2009, dated 28.7.2010, the present Respondent No.1 has been allowed to withdraw an amount of Rs.1,06,96,317/- (Rupees one crore six lacs ninety six thousand three hundred seventeen only). It is also further submitted by the learned counsel that an amount of Rs.56,00,000/- (Rupees fifty six lacs only) is kept in Fixed Deposit in the joint account of the petitioner and the present Respondent. So also the present Respondent is a beneficiary of an amount of Rs. 17,00,000/- (Rupees seventeen lacs only). In light of that the Respondent No.1 has received more than 40% of the amount involved. As such the impugned order directing the petitioner to deposit 40% of the amount as a pre-condition for hearing the appeal is unreasonable and does not stand to any reason. 4 W.P.No.4010/11 6. Mr.Choudhari, learned counsel for the Respondents submits that the Tribunal has got the authority and the jurisdiction to direct the appellant before it to deposit the amount to the extent of 75% U/s 7(O) of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act. The Tribunal has taken a liberal approach and had directed the petitioner to deposit 40%. The said order can not be said to be unreasonable. The learned counsel further contends that though this Court has passed an order directing the Registry to remit the amount of Rs.1,06,96,317/-, the Respondent has till now not received the said amount. It can not be said that the Respondent is in receipt of the amount from the amount assessed. 7. The fact that this Court has already passed an order entitling the present Respondent to withdraw the amount of Rs.1,06,96,317/- is not disputed. It is also not disputed that there is no further prohibitory order which would disentitle the present Respondent to withdraw the said amount. In view of the fact that there is 5 W.P.No.4010/11 no other prohibitory order restraining the Respondent from withdrawing the said amount, it is for the Respondent to withdraw the said amount. None the less, it can be said that from the amount assessed, the amount of Rs. 1,06,96,317/- is with the Respondent. Moreover, this Court has also directed an amount of Rs. 56,00,000/- (Rupees fifty six lacs) to be kept in joint account of the present petitioner and Respondents. As such the said amount is also safe. The total amount would be more than 50% of the amount of the subject matter of challenge before the Tribunal. 8. Probably, these facts were not before the Tribunal while passing the order impugned. In light of the above facts, I quash and set aside the order impugned directing the petitioner to deposit 40% of the assessed amount. The Tribunal shall hear the appeal on its own merits, if otherwise it complies with all other legal compliances. 6 W.P.No.4010/11 9. Rule made absolute in above terms. No costs. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) asp/office/wp408011