IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4332 OF 2009 Smt.Nalini Prakash Kulkarni. ... Petitioner. V/s. The State of Maharashtra & ors. ... Respondents. S.A.Dhamale for the petitioner. C.R.Sonawane, AGP for the respondent. CORAM : V.C.DAGA AND A.A.SAYED, JJ. DATED : 7th September 2009. P.C. : Rule, returnable forthwith. Learned A.G.P. waives service for the respondents. Petition is taken up for hearing by consent of parties. 2. It is the case of the Petitioners that his provident fund dues are not being released in view of the order of the Collector dated 1st November, 2000. We may at the outset point out that the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of The Depositors in Various Financial Institutions Act, 1999 has been held to be unconstitutional by this court. The matter is now pending before the Apex Court. Earlier, the Nashik Zilla Grahak Panchayat had filed a petition before this court which amongst others included the 2 petitioners being W.P.No.3554 of 2000 which was disposed of by order dated 23rd October, 2001. The learned Bench noted the provisions of the Act and disposed of the petition by directing the State Government to proceed further in accordance with the Act and to take all steps necessary for due and effective implementation of the Act. The State Government in respect of several immovable properties amongst others of the petitioner, pursuant to the power conferred upon them under Section 5 of the Act has attached those immovable properties. There is no order of attachment of Provident Fund Dues under Section 4 of the Act. 3. The designated court did not entertain the grievance of the petitioner and observed that the petitioner should approach the Collector or the Education Officer. The petitioner approached those authorities but they have not taken any action. 4. In that context question arises, whether the Collector who is the competent authority only in respect of the properties which are attached under Section 4 of the Act could have issued any directions in so far as Provident Fund of the Petitioners are concerned. The provisions of the Section 4 are clear. The power is conferred on the State Government. The State Government till date has taken no steps and consequently the order passed by the Collector dated 1st November, 2000 is clearly without authority of law and without jurisdiction and consequently petition will have to be allowed. In the light of that rule made absolute in terms of Prayer Clauses (a), (b) and (c). In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. (A.A.SAYED, J.) (V.C.DAGA, J.)