JUDGMENT :

D.Y. Chandrachud, J.—In these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Petitioners seek to challenge a warrant of arrest which was issued on June 25, 2001 against the Second Petitioner. In pursuance of the warrant of arrest, the Second Petitioner was detained in civil prison for a period of 9 days until July 3, 2001. On the Petition being moved for urgent orders on July 3, 2001, this Court granted ad interim relief directing the authorities to release the Second Petitioner from detention. The Petitioners stated that they were ready and willing to deposit an amount of Rs. 1 lac with the Respondent authorities towards the out-standing Provident Fund dues forthwith and that statement was recorded. The amount, the Court is informed, has been deposited. The short question which arises is whether the arrest of the Second Petitioner was in accordance with the provisions of Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (the "E. P. F. Act, 1952").

2. The Fourth Petitioner is a private limited Company, of which the first three Petitioners are Directors. Under a Deed of Partnership dated October 11, 1985, the first three Petitioners together with one