Writ petition 892/2009 1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 892/2009 THE MAHARASHTRA STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION / M.S.F.C., RAILWAY STATION ROAD, AURANGABAD THROUGH ITS REGIONAL MANAGER Vs. THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION, AURANGABAD THROUGH ITS COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS. Office Notes,Office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders Mr. P.K. Joshi, for the petitioner. Mr. K.B. Chaudhari, standing counsel for respondent No1. Mr. R.B. Dhaware h/f Mr. U.S. Malte for respondent No.2. Respondent No.3 absent though served. CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATED : 24th March, 2011. 1. Heard. 2 At admission stage, this writ petition is disposed of by following order. 3 Respondent No.2 admittedly is debtor of the petitioner. The petitioner, pursuant to their powers Writ petition 892/2009 2 under Section 29 of State Finance Corporation Act, 1951 attached certain property belonging to the respondent No.2 and even sold it in auction. The sale proceeds then stood credited to the petitioner’s account. Respondent No.2 also owed to respondent No.1 Rs.6,80,754/-. towards Provident Fund contributions. No sooner the auction sale took place, respondent No.1 the Employees’ Provident Fund Organization, pursuant to their powers under section 8-F of the Provident Fund Act, attached the entire amount including the sale proceeds lying in the account of the petitioner. They eventually succeeded in taking away Rs.6,80,754 from the account. The petitioner challenged the action of attachment and eventually taking away Rs. 6,80,754/-. towards Provident Fund contributions from their account, in this writ petition. However, it is settled law that the employees’ provident fund organization under the Ministry of Labour, had precedent over other creditors of a defaulter of the contribution of the provident fund. Shri Chaudhary the Ld. Advoacate appearing for the respondent No.1 rightly placed reliance on judgment in a case Maharashtra State Co-operative Bank Ltd. Versus Asstt. Provident Fund Commissioner, Writ petition 892/2009 3 Aurangabad reported in 2009 AIR SCW 6784 in order to show the prerogative right of his client. In view of this, soon after sale took place, respondent No.1 issued a show cause notice on 26/03/2008 to the petitioner indicating them that they would have precedence over their claim, to the extent of defaulted amount of provident fund contribution. In view of this, the petitioner in fact were helpless and they neither could stop the seizure of the account nor the forfeiture of the amount mentioned above. However, this does not mean that the petitioner have lost their right to recover the remaining dues including the amount which they have lost, to the respondent no.1 from the respondent No.2. ORDER a) The writ petition stands dismissed. b) The petitioner is given liberty to proceed against the respondent No.2 to recover the amount which they lost at the hands of the respondent No.1 and other amount if any. They are free to take such legal action, as may be advised against the respondent No.2. [A.V. NIRGUDE, J.] ts k/2011/march24/wp892.09/ok Writ petition 892/2009 4