JUDGMENT

1. Regard being had to the commonality of the controversy in both the aforesaid writ petitions, it was thought apposite to hear them analogously and, accordingly, they were heard together with the consent of the parties and are being disposed off by the present singular order.

2. The aforesaid two writ petitions have been filed for holding that the sudden attachment of bank accounts of the petitioner company existing with the respondent banks i.e. Bank of Baroda/SBI/HDFC Limited/Syndicate Bank/Canara Bank/Punjab National Bank by the respondent Employees Provident Fund Organization authorities without any prior notice much less without any order of assessment and consequent demand notice as also without any admitted dues being pending is illegal, arbitrary and high handed action unknown to the acceptable principle of law and practice. Consequently, it has been prayed that the respondent no. 4 i.e. the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner (Co-ordination), Employees Provident Fund Organization, Bihar, Patna be directed to revoke the attachment order/instruction issued to the respondent bank regarding attachment of the bank accounts of the petitioner company, quash the show cause notice issued by the respondent no. 4 dated 05.11.2020 and further restrain the respondents from taking any action against the petitioner company for recovery of any such amount allegedly diverted from the Employees Provident Fund Organization (hereinafter referred to as the 'EPFO') to the bank accounts of fake entities in absence of any such power under the Act.

3. The brief facts, sufficient for adjudication of the case in hand is that the petitioner of the first case is engaged in providing human resources outsourcing and allied activities and the petitioner of the second case is engaged in providing security services, human resources outsourcing and allied activities. The provisions of the Employees Provident Funds And Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (herein after referred to as the "Act, 1952") govern the whole mechanism of registration of employer and employee with the Employees Provident Fund Organization, payment of contribution by the employer, payment of employer's contribution, maintenance of funds, determination and assessment of liabilities of a particular employer, protection and safety of the interest of employee in terms of the provisions of the Act, recovery of assessed liabilities from the employer, offences and penalties and remedies against the orders passed by the assessing authorities under the Act, 1952. The petitioners are stated to be holding an Employees Provident Fund code with the Employees Provident Fund Organization at Patna. It is the case of the petitioners that they have always been strictly complying with the requirements of payment of contribution of each and every employee since registration with the said organization and they have always maintained complete and accurate records of its employees and have made payment of contribution from time to time in respect of all such employees.

4. It is the further case of the petitioners that the respondent no. 4, vide letter no. 1587 dated 28.08.2019 intimated the petitioners about detection of some suspicious payment of Provident Funds into one single bank accounts on the basis of Form F/19 and F/10 C forwarded allegedly by the petitioner. The said letter further called upon the petitioner of the first case to deposit a sum of Rs. 10,07,534/- within a period of seven days against proposed legal action in case of failure. As far as the petitioner of the second case is concerned, it was called upon to deposit a sum of Rs. 19,36,799/-. It is stated that along with the aforesaid letter dated 28.08.2019, the respondent no. 4 had not forwarded any piece of paper as regards the evidence of such diversion of fund into some accounts which were suspected to be fake and not genuine. In fact no report of the audit section of the Employees Provident Fund Organization much less any