IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5618 of 2009 KUMAR GOUTAM SHROFF . Versus THE EMP.REG.PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER AND ORS. ----------- 4/ 03/01/2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the Employees Regional Provident Fund Commissioner. A counter affidavit is stated to have been filed on behalf of the respondents on 29.11.2010. It is not available on the record. Let the office trace it out and place on record. It is submitted that the father of the petitioner ran a transport business in the name and style of M/s. Inter State Transport Agency in partnership with the petitioner and his two other brothers. The petitioner does not dispute that the respondents can seek fulfillment of legal liabilities from any partner of the firm singly and who in turn may make proportionate recoveries from the other partners. In the present case, the liabilities relate to a period prior to the death of the father of the petitioner. The petitioner is alone being pursued by the Department for the recoveries when he has made part payments also. It is submitted that if the whereabouts of the two other partner brothers was not known, the matter may have been entirely different. When the petitioner himself has furnished details of his two other brother partners along - 2 - with assets for recovery it is not very fair on the part of the authorities to pursue matters against the petitioner alone. Learned counsel for the Provident Fund Commissioner submits that it is not concerned with the three individual partners collectively and can choose to pursue the matter against any one partner also. While there can be no dispute with regard to the correctness of the legal position as urged on behalf of the Provident Fund Department, but surely the Department would be more interested in actual recovery of the money for disbursement to the beneficiaries rather than pursuing matters against one partner only who resorts to litigation in an effort to save his estate alone. Had the whereabouts of the other partners not been known to the Department the issue may be different, but after it is alleged to have been furnished by the petitioner, matters may be entirely different. Surely, if the Department is made aware of the whereabouts of the other two partners also the chances of recovery from three persons shall definitely stand on a better footing than a forced limited recovery from a single partner alone. If what the petitioner contends is correct, and he has furnished the proper and correct address of the - 3 - other partners and details of their properties also, the Court expects the Employees Regional Provident Fund Commissioner to act more reasonably, prudently and responsibly in the interest of the Department itself to make recoveries. Nothing in this order shall be deemed or construed as any limitation on the authorities prohibiting them from imposing sanction on the petitioner alone should the Department despite its efforts based on information furnished by the petitioner fail to trace out the other two partners. The writ application stands disposed with the aforesaid observations. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)