K.A. Puj, J.

The Petitioner-Bank has filed this petition under Articles-226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking direction to the Respondent No. 1 i.e. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Ahmedabad, restraining him from implementing the impugned notices at Exhibit-'C', 'E' and 'H' and for quashing further proceedings arising therefrom. The Petitioner-Bank has also sought for the direction that the notices at Exhibit-'C', 'E' and 'H' and the impugned action of the Respondent No. 1, threatening to arrest and attach the properties are ultra vires, unconstitutional and illegal.

This petition was admitted and Rule was issued on 10.1.1992. The Court has passed detailed interim order and prima facie recorded that it cannot be disputed that the Respondent-Provident Fund Commissioner has power to issue notices in question. It also appears that it was not open to the Branch Manager of the Petitioner-Bank to ignore the notice of attachment dated March 19, 1991, issued under the provisions of Section 8-F of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. The Court further observed that despite notices the Branch Manager of the Petitioner-Bank has not complied with the same and hence the Court has thought it fit not to grant interim relief without conditions. The Court has, therefore, directed the Respondent No. l not to take any further action pursuant to the impugned notices on the condition that the Bank open an account in the name of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Ahmedabad, and credits the aforesaid amount of Rs. 16,20,955.75ps. in that account. The Court further directed that after opening the said account, the Bank shall invest the amount in Fixed Deposit initially for a period of one year and thereafter, the Bank shall go on renewing the Fixed Deposit together with interest accrued thereon till final hearing and disposal of the petition. The Court has also made it clear that at the time of final hearing appropriate order would be passed by the Court as to whether the amount together with interest accrued thereon should be paid to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner or that it should be permitted to be retained by the Bank.

2. This interim order was challenged by the Petitioner-Bank before the Apex Court in SLP No. 1464 of 1992. By disposing of the said SLP No. 1464 of 1992 on 16.10.1995, the Court observed on the basis of the statement made by the learned Solicitor General on 21.4.1992 that no coercive process of recovery would be undertaken against the Petitioner-Bank and the said order would remain operative during the pendency of the writ petition before this Court. With this direction the said SLP was disposed of. The Apex Court has directed that the writ petition would be decided expeditiously.

3. It is the case of the Petitioner-Bank that the Respondent No. 2-Company which is under liquidation, was inter alia, dealing with the manufacture of textiles. The Respondent No. 2 is a constituent of the Petitioner-Bank since several years and availed of various credit facilities for the purpose of its business. Since, Respondent No. 2-Company was indebted to the Petitioner-Bank for a huge amount, it was constrained to file Special Civil Suit No. 690 of 1987 in the Court of learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nadiad, inter alia, praying for recovery of a sum of Rs. 203.35 Lacs on 11.12.1987. In the said suit, the Petitioner had sought interim relief. The learned Trial Judge, by his judgment and order dated 05.11.1988, passed interim order permitting the Respondent No. 2-Company to do the job work provided it fulfilled the terms and conditions mentioned in the said order. Since, the Respondent No. 2-Company was permitted to carry out the job work only with a view to help the employees to earn their livelihood, the Petitioner-Bank had, inter alia, agreed to permit Respondent No. 2 to operate a separate account in the Cambey Branch of the Petitioner Bank for doing the transactions