JUDGMENT

A. S. NAIDU, J. — Orissa Agro Industries Corporation Limited, a Government of Orissa Undertaking, has filed this Writ Petition invoking this Cour’s jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to quash the order dated 31st march, 2003 - Annexure 11, the order dated 4th July, 2003 - Annexure 14 and the order dated 18th July, 2003 - Annexure 16, passed by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Orissa, Bhubaneswar, opposite party No.2 and for other ancillary reliefs.

2. In order to cater to the need of firms at their door step, the petitioner concern was established. It has engaged several employees to achieve its objectives. While matter stood thus, the petitioner Corporation received a notice under Section 7-A of the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for determina¬tion of the amount due from the petitioner towards the provident fund of its employees. After perusing the reply of the petitioner to the said notice and giving opportunity to the petitioner, the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, opposite party No.2, vide order Annexure-11, assessed the dues payable by the petitioner concern. A review application filed by the petitioner was re¬jected. After adjudication, finally it was held that the peti¬tioner was liable to pay a sum of Rs. 2, 92,000.00 (Two Crores Ninety-two Lakhs) towards the provident fund dues of its em¬ployees. As the said amount was not paid, the Provident Fund authorities initiated proceedings for recovery thereof and issued an order under Section 8-F of the Act to the State Bank of India, Bhubaneswar Branch and other Banks calling upon them to attach the amount lying in deposit in the account of the petitioner. The Provident Fund authorities also attached the other Bank accounts of the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the said action, the petition¬er has approached this Court.

3. The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, opposite party No.2, on receipt of notice appeared through Mr. U. K. Samal, Advocate and has filed a counter-affidavit inter alia submitting that the order passed under Section 7-A of the Act is appealable and as such the present Writ Petition should be dis¬missed in limine.

4. The State Bank of India, Commercial Branch, Bhubaneswar filed a petition for intervention inter alia submitting that the Bank has a lien over the amount lying in deposit in the petition¬er’s account in respect of the loans availed by the petitioner and as such the order issued by the Provident Fund authorities directing the Bank to pay the amount lying in the Bank in peti¬tioner’s account to the Provident Fund authorities is not just and proper and unless the said order is varied, it would cause immense hardship to the intervener Bank.

5. In course of hearing, Mr. Jagannath Patnaik, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner does not dispute with regard to its payability of the sum of Rs. 2 crores 92 lakhs as demanded by the Provident Fund authorities towards arrear provident fund dues. He further sub¬mitted that the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner No.I, Oris¬sa, by his letter dated 14th November, 2003 considering the representation filed by the petitioner has agreed to certain terms and conditions, the most important term being for payment of the admitted dues by the petitioner in thirty six monthly instalments, each instalment being of Rs. 8.11 lakhs apart from payment of the current monthly Provident Fund dues regularly.

6. It is no doubt correct that against an order passed under Section 7-A of the Act an appeal lies. But then this is a case where the petitioner, a Government of Orissa Undertaking, is not disputing its payability of the amount fixed by the Provi¬dent Fund authorities. The only prayer of the petitioner advanced in course of hearing of the case is to fix suitable instalments keeping in mind the current financial position of the pet