IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 132 OF 2010 M/S BHARATI INDUSTRIAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED AND 4 ORS., ... Petitioners Versus UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY AND 3 ORS., ... Respondents Mr. Arjun F. Naik, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. C. A. Ferreira, Public Prosecutor for the respondents. Coram:- U. D. SALVI, J. Date:- 18th February, 2010 P.C. Heard. Perused petition and the annexures therewith. 2. A statement is made that issue of detention of the petitioner no.4 pursuant to the Order of detention made under section 8G of the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and second Schedule(part I) of ITA, 1961 is only being agitated and issue concerning the validity of the Order under section 7A of the said Act has been given up. The Petitioners seek liberty to approach the Appellate Tribunal for agitating the said issue of validity of the Order under section 7A of the said Act. 3. Learned Advocate Mr. A. Naik for the petitioners brought to the notice of this Court the relevant provision of EPF Act and IPA for the purpose of showing how the authorities have rushed to the remedy of putting the petitioner n.4, under detention without first exhausting the remedy of attachment of the property of the petitioners. He further pleaded that the authority have also not recorded their satisfaction regarding the likelihood of the abscondense of the petitioners with the object of delaying the execution of the recovery Order. 4. Learned P.P. Mr. C. A. Ferreira for the respondents submitted that the satisfaction referred to by the petitioners has been duly recorded by the Recovery Officer in the Order dated 14.12.2009 and a copy of such Order can be given to the petitioner immediately. He further brought to the notice of this Court that the properties under attachment have been mortgaged by the petitioner and the relevant facts have not been disclosed by the petitioners anywhere in the Writ Petition. 5. In this situation petitioners now have chosen to withdraw this petition with liberties to approach the appellate Tribunal under the said Act for agitating the issue regarding validity of the Order passed under section 7A of the said Act and further to approach this Court again with a revised petition for throwing challenge to the detention Order. 6. The petitioners also make a statement that the review filed by the petitioners for review of Order dated 17.12.2009 passed in writ petition no. 849/2009 shall be withdrawn by them. 7. Learned Advocate Mr. A. Naik for the petitioners clarifies that the submissions and the statements made have been made by him upon instructions furnished by the petitioner no.5, the wife of petitioner no.4 who is present before the Court. 8. Considering these submissions and statements made by the petitioners an permission is granted to the petitioners to withdraw the present petition with liberties as sought. Petition shall stand dismissed as being withdrawn with no Order as to costs. U. D. SALVI, J. vn