IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 849 OF 2009 SUBHASH CHANDRA ROY THROUGH HIS WIFE BHARATI ROY ... Petitioner Versus REGIONAL COMMISSIONER-II, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER AND 5 ORS., ... Respondents Mr. Arjun F. Naik, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. P. P. Singh, Caveator for Respondent nos. 1 to 4. Coram:- SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI & R. M. SAVANT, JJ. Date:- 17th December, 2009 P.C. Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and learned Counsel for the Respondent nos. 1 to 4. 2. The Petitioner has prayed for a writ of Habeas Corpus praying therein for direction to strike down the Order of detention and to release the detenu Shri Subhash Chandra Roy. First of all, it is seen that the Petitioner Shri Subhash Chandra Roy is not a detenu and he has not been detained under any detention law. On going through the facts, we find that it is not a case of illegal arrest or illegal detention. 3. The Petitioner is a businessman and he had formed two Companies i.e. M/s. Bharati Industries Services Pvt. Ltd., and another Company by name M/s. Roy and Roy Industrial Services and Accessories Pvt. Ltd. Both these Companies have committed defaults for the period from 2006 to 2007 under The Employees' Provident Funds & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, the Employees Provident Fund Scheme 1952, the Employees Pension Scheme 1995 and the Employees Deposit Linked Insurance Scheme 1976. The learned Counsel for the Respondent nos. 1 to 4 submitted that the default is to the tune of Rs.65,00,000/-. As there was default on the part of the Petitioner, proceedings were initiated under Section 7A of the Act. Thereafter, an Order dated 30.06.2009 came to be passed under Section 7A by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II. The Petitioner had participated in the said proceedings and thereafter this Order came to be passed. In fact, in the said proceedings, the Petitioner has admitted that the establishment had committed default in payment of dues from the year 2006 onwards, and in fact, sought time to pay the outstanding dues. The Petitioner was granted 15 days time to pay the said dues, failing which the amount was to be recovered in the manner prescribed under Sections 8B to 8G of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act. 4. It is seen that the said Orders have not been challenged by the Petitioner by resorting to statutory remedies under the Act nor has the Petitioner paid the outstanding amounts, hence the Respondents after following due procedure under the Act, initiated recovery proceedings under Section 8B to 8G of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, which, inter alia, provides for attachment of property as well as arrest of the person and his detention in prison. 5. It is seen that after following all the procedures, recovery certificate dated 07.07.2009 came to be issued in respect of arrears under Section 7A of the Act. Thereafter, Order of attachment of immovable property came to be issued on 18.09.2009. A show cause notice also came to be issued to the Petitioner on 10.09.2009 and on 18.09.2009. By the said show causes notices, the Petitioner was asked to appear on 24.09.2009 to show cause as to why he should not be arrested and committed to the civil prison in execution of the recovery certificate. However, the Petitioner, did not appear. Thereafter, after following due procedure, he came to be arrested. 6. In view of the above facts, it is clear that it is not a case of illegal arrest or detention, hence, no case is made out for interference. Writ Petition is dismissed. It would be open to the Petitioner to take recourse to any remedy for his release as is available to him in law. SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J. R. M. SAVANT, J. arp/*