JUDGMENT

J.NISHA BANU , J .

AND N.ANAND VENKATESH,J.

This Writ Appeal has been filed by the Kanyakumari Central Co-

operative Bank Limited, challenging the order, dated 31.10.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the Writ Petition, which in-turn, challenges the proceedings of the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Nagercoil, dated 02.02.2010, whereby, a sum of Rs.1,88,866/- along with 18% interest was recovered from the appellant Bank.

2.The third respondent Society defaulted in the payment of contribution towards Provident Fund and action was initiated under the provision of Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The third respondent Society was maintaining the account with the appellant Bank. Since the contribution amount was not paid by the third respondent Society, the first respondent issued a notice to the appellant on 26.08.2009 stating that the third respondent Society has defaulted in making payment to the Department and hence, the appellant Bank was directed to pay the amount.

3.A show cause notice to that effect was issued in accordance with Section 8F (3) (x) of the Act. The appellant Bank did not respond to the said show cause notice. Hence, the appellant Bank was treated as a 'Deemed Defaulter' and consequently, proceedings were initiated for the recovery of the amount from the appellant Bank and the amount was also recovered. Aggrieved by the same, the writ petition was filed by the Bank.

4.The learned Single Judge, on considering the rival claims and after taking note of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Maharashtra State Coop. Bank Ltd.,-vs-Provident Fund Commr., reported in (2009) 10 SCC 123, held that it was well within the powers of the first respondent to recover the amount and accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, this Writ Appeal has been filed before this Court.

5.Heard Mr.D.Shanmugaraja Sethupathi, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr.J.S.Murali, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent.

6.The main ground that was urged by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant is that a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- was received by the appellant Bank from the Government towards the Rehabilitation Scheme and the said amount can only be utilized towards revival of the Society and the amount cannot be utilized for any other purpose. It was, therefore, submitted that the first respondent was not entitled to recover the amount, which was lying in the account of the third respondent Society in the appellant Bank, since the amount was received towards the Rehabilitation Scheme. The learned counsel further placed reliance upon Section 8(F)(2) of the Act and submitted that the appellant Bank cannot be treated to be the person, who is due to pay to the third respondent Society and there is no question of any arrears by the appellant Bank towards the third respondent Society and hence, the application of Section 8(F) of the Act cannot go against the appellant Bank and the same is illegal. The learned counsel further submitted that the amount has already been recovered by the first respondent and the appellant Bank is answerable to the Government and the appellant Bank should not be made liable or responsible for an act, where the appellant Bank had no role to play. Accordingly, the learned counsel sought for setting aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge.

7.Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Provident Fund Commissioner submitted that the third respondent Society was maintaining a bank account in the appellant Bank and there were Provident Fund dues and damages payable by the Society to an extent of Rs.1,88,866/-. Since the third respondent Society did not make the payment, the Department was entitled to proceed further under Section 8F of the Act and accordingly, a show cause notice was also issued to the appellant Bank, as per Section 8F(3)(x) of the Act