Srikrishna, C.J.

This appeal impugns the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 22nd June, 1994 allowing the Original Petition and quashing recovery notices issued by the Recovery Officer and Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner to the first respondent corporation.

2. The appellant before us is the "Recovery Officer" within the meaning of Sec. 2(kb) of the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as "E.P.F. & M.P. Act"), who is also empowered to recover Provident Fund dues by reason of Sec. 8G of the Act. The first respondent is a Corporation established under the State Financial corporation Act, 1951. The second respondent is a scheduled bank carrying on business at Trivandrum in the State of Kerala.

3. A company by name "M/s. Darpan Electronics (Private) Limited" (hereinafter referred to as "the company") was running an industrial concern engaging employees and was covered by the provisions of the E.P.F. & M.P. Act, 1952. The company had obtained loans from the first respondent Corporation for the purpose of setting up its business. On 21-2-1997, it executed a loan agreement securing by mortgage certain immovable property belonging to it and by a deed of hypothecation certain movable properties. During the period March 1990 and December 1990, the Company committed default in payment of the contributions to the Employees Provident Fund under the E.P.F. & M.P. Act. It also committed default in repayment of the loan which it had taken from the first respondent Corporation. This first respondent initiated proceedings under sec. 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as "S.F.C. Act") and tookover all the movable and immovable assets of the Company on 18th November, 1991. On 20-12-1993, the movable assets were sold towards realization of the debts due to the first respondent Corporation. A sum of Rs. 89,083/- is lying in the account of the said company with the second respondent Bank. A sum of Rs. 37,150/- is said to be due from the company towards the employer's contribution to the Provident Fund.

4. The appellant, who is also the Recovery Officer as defined in Sec. 2(kb) of the E.P.F. & M.P. Act, exercising powers of a tax recovery officer under Schedule II of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which is made applicable to recovery of Provident fund contribution by reason of Sec. 8G of the said Act, issued demand notices to the company demanding payment of the amount found due towards the employer's contribution. In exercise of his powers, he also attached 37 cents of land from Sy. Nos. 1763 and 1784 of Palkulangara Village which had already been mortgaged to the first respondent Corporation. He issued a notice dated 16-12-1993 vide Ext. R1(g), calling upon the first respondent as to why the amount due should not be recovered from it. By another order dated 6-1-1994, the appellant also prohibited second respondent bank from transferring the amount of Rs. 89,083/- lying in the account of the company.

5. The first respondent Corporation moved this Court by its Original Petition No. 1164 of 1994 and challenged all notices of attachment and prohibitory orders issued by the appellant. This O.P. was allowed and the learned Single Judge was pleased to quash all the notices and the orders issued by the appellant. Hence, this appeal.

6. In order to appreciate the controversy, it is necessary to notice certain statutory provisions. The S.F.C. Act, 1951 was enacted to provide for establishing of Financial corporations which could help in the establishment and development of industries in States. Though the Act is of the year 1951, by an amendment made by Act 56 of 1956, Sec. 46-B was introduced to give extra-ordinary powers to the Corporation set up under this Act. Sec. 46-B of the S.F.C. Act reads as under :

"46-B. Effect of Act on other laws. - The provisions of this Act and of any rules, or orders made thereunder shall have effect notwithstanding anything