JUDGMENT :

K.S. Jhaveri, J.

The present appeal has been filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent by the appellant original respondent No. 1 against the order dated 25.11.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Special Civil Application No. 8706 of 1991, whereby the learned single Judge has allowed the petition.

2. The facts in brief are that the appellant herein is the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, State of Gujarat, appointed under Section 5D of the Provisions of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. It is the case of the appellant that the respondent No. 2M/s Rajprakash Spinning Mills Ltd. was having P.F. Code No. GJ/4178 and it was in default in compliance with the provisions of the Act and therefore, an amount of Rs.31.32 lacs was due from the respondent No. 2 on account of Provident Fund and allied dues/damages payable under the said Act. In the year 1991 the appellant came to know that the respondent No. 2 Company has an account in the respondent No. 1 Bank. Therefore, the appellant issued a Notice under Section 8(F) of the Act on 19.3.1991 to the Chairman of respondent No. 1 Bank and the Branch Manager, Khambhat Branch calling upon them to remit the amount lying in the said account in exercise of powers conferred under Section 8F(3)(II) of the Act. It is the case of the appellant that in spite of receipt of the notice, the respondent No. 1 Bank has allowed the respondent No. 2 Company to withdraw an amount of Rs.16,20.955/.

2.1. It appears from the record that the respondent No. 1 Bank has challenged the action of the appellant of issuing notice under Section 8F of the Act by filing a petition being Special Civil Application No. 8706 of 1991. This Court vide order dated 10.1.1992 directed the respondent No. 1 Bank to open a bank account in the name of the appellant in their Khambhat Branch and credit an amount of Rs.16,20,955/. The respondent No. 1 Bank challenged the said order before the Apex Court. The Apex Court remanded the matter before this Court for fresh consideration. After matter being remanded, this court vide impugned judgment and order dated 25.11.2010 quashed and set aside the notice issued under Section 8F of the Act. Hence, this appeal.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that learned Single Judge has committed an error in allowing the petition. He further submitted that in view of the provisions of the Act, the appellant has power to recover the amount and therefore, the notice under Section 8F of the Act was issued to respondent No. 1 Bank.

3.1. He relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Maharashtra State Cooperative Bank Limited v. Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner and Ors, reported in (2009) 10 SCC 123.

4. On the other hand learned advocate for the respondent supported the impugned order of learned Single Judge and submitted that the learned Single Judge after considering the material on record has passed the impugned order, therefore, there is no germane reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order.

5. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant as also learned advocate appearing for the respondent and perused the material on record. We have also perused the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge and found that the learned Single Judge has given cogent and convincing reasons in arriving at the conclusion. The learned Single Judge while deciding the petition has observed in paragraph Nos. 15, 16, 17 and 18 as under:"

"15. Mr. Parikh is also right in canvassing before the Court that after receipt of the notice under Section 8(F) of the Act, the Bank is merely garnishee to pay any amount lying to the credit of the respondent No. 2 Bank. As a garnishee, the Bank has an equitable right to adjust any credit of the respondent No. 2 against its dues and therefore, the Bank being garnishee could not have been asked to pay the dues to the respondent No. 1 in priority of dues of the petitioner Bank. In