1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 7001OF 2009 Shri P.K. Anna Patil Janta Sahakari Bank Limited Taloda Road, Nandurbar through its Liquidator Shri Sopan Bapu Shinde Age 41 years, Occ. Service R/o. Nandurbar, District Nandurbar ..Petitioner/s Versus 1] The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner Sub Regional Office, Plot No. P-11, “Bhavishya Nidhi Bhavan” M.I.D.C, Satpur, Nashik District Nashik. 2] Shri M.G. Vyas, Enforcement Officer, Provident Office Jalgaon, District Jalgaon. 3] Smt. M.R. Jadhav Enforcement Officer, Provident Fund Office, Nashik, District Nashik. . . Respondent/s. --- Mr. V.D. Hon, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. K.B. Choudhari, Advocate for the respondents CORAM : R.M. BORDE, J. DATE : 19th April, 2010. 2 ORAL ORDER :- 1] Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of parties, taken up for final hearing at the admission stage. 2] The only grievance made in this petition by the petitioner establishment is that, the impugned order passed by the respondents under Section 7A of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 ( hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1952”) is issued without extending an opportunity of hearing to the representative of the petitioner. 3] A notice came to be issued by the respondent Provident Fund Authorities in respect of recovery of dues payable towards the provident fund, which is required to be deposited with the authorities for the period between May 2007 to June, 2008. The dues recoverable by the authorities for the aforesaid period are to the tune of Rs. 36,92,834/-. It appears that the notice was transmitted to the establishment i.e the petitioner bank, during the course of the enquiry. However, there was no participation of the representative of the bank and as such, the final order came to be passed by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Nashik, requiring the 3 petitioner establishment to deposit the aforesaid amount payable towards the P.F. dues. Further action as contemplated by Section 8F of the said Act has been initiated by the authorities and the bank accounts of the petitioner establishment are sealed. The petitioners are taking exception to the above action by the authorities. 4] Shri Hon, appearing for the petitioners states that the managing body of the petitioner bank has been superseded and an order of appointment of liquidator has been passed under Section 102 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act. It is further informed that the banking license issued by the R.B.I. in favour of the petitioner bank has been revoked and as such, the activities of the petitioner establishment have come to a stand still. 5] The liquidator appointed by the State Government in exercise of the provisions of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act is required to take steps and is also responsible to refund the dues to the secured and unsecured creditors. It is contended that the liquidator has taken charge on 6/1/2009 and the impugned order has been passed under Section 7A of the Act, by the authorities on 21/8/2009. 4 6] The impugned order is passed much after the appointment of the liquidator by the state Government. It is contended that the liquidator had no opportunity to raise his contentions before the P.F. Authorities and as such, the order which has been passed without extending an opportunity of hearing to the liquidator, is liable to be quashed and set aside. 7] Shri Choudhari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, has controverted the contentions. He submits that ample opportunity was extended to the petitioner bank to raise their contentions before the P.F. Authorities, however, they have not availed the opportunity and as such, there was no option left with the P.F. Authorities than to pass an exparte order. 8] It is to be noted that the liquidator appointed under the provisions of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, is responsible for taking steps for disposal of the assets and for refund of the dues of the creditors as well as depositors of the bank. The liquidator, as such, is required to be heard i the proceeding initiated by the P.F. Authorities. Even 5 otherwise, the claims of the creditors and the P.F. Authorities are required to be settled by the liquidator. 9] Taking into consideration all these aspect, I am of the opinion that the order passed by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Nasik dated 22/7/2009 is liable to be quashed and set aside and he is directed to hear the liquidator and pass an order afresh. The impugned order dated 22/7/2009, passed under Section 7A and consequential order under Section 8F of the Act of 1952 passed by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Nasik dated 19/8/2009 is also quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted back to the concerned authority, with a direction to extend further opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and decide the matter afresh. However, the petitioner bank is directed to set apart, a sum of Rs. 36 Lakhs, until disposal of the proceedings before the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Nasik. The amount so set apart, shall be subject to the final order that may be passed by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner in the proceedings. The petitioner undertakes to cooperate during the enquiry proceedings before the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner. 6 10] In view of the reasons recorded above, Rule is made absolute. In the circumstances there shall no orders as to costs. [R.M. BORDE,J.] Grt/-