C O M M O N O R D E R

(through video conference)

Heard Mr. M.Kannan, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. V.Venkateshwaran, Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the First and Second Respondents and perused the materials placed on record, apart from the pleadings of the parties.

2. These Writ Petitions challenge the orders No. TN/MDU/91185/Enf.C/ Circle 15/M-5/8F/2016 dated 19.10.2016 passed by the First Respondent under Section 8-F of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act for short), on the ground that they are consequential orders for the recovery of provident fund contribution determined by order No. MD/MDU/91185/ENF 'C'/M-5/15011/2016 dated 21.09.2016 passed by the First Respondent under Section 7-A of the Act, which has been challenged in another Writ Petition in W.P. (MD) No. 21694 of 2016 before this Court.

3. This Court by a separate order passed today (28.07.2021) has dismissed the Writ Petition in W.P. No. 21694 of 2016 and as such, there is no impediment for recovering the amount due under the said order. It is, however, pointed out by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner that in view of the hasty manner in which the First Respondent has proceeded with recovery action, the impugned orders cannot be affirmed.

4. Combating such grievance sought to be ventilated by the Petitioner, it is highlighted by the Learned Counsel appearing for the First and Second Respondents that there is no bar in taking prompt and immediate action for recovery of the amounts due towards provident fund after the determination of the liability of the Petitioner under Section 7-A of the Act and on the other hand, it is the public duty cast on the First and Second Respondents to carry out such exercise. Though there is considerable force in such submission made by the Learned Counsel for the First and Second Respondents, it cannot mean that the authorities under the Act can have unbridled power to flout the prescribed procedure for recovery infringing the safeguard provided in Article

300-A of the Constitution of India, which mandates as follows:-

"300-A. Persons not to be deprived of property save by authority of law:-

No person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law."

It cannot be gainsaid that the right to property of a person can be taken away only by a procedure established by law, which has to be fair and reasonable and not arbitrary. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to quote the relevant passages from the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Ram Kishun -vs- State of Uttar Pradesh [(2012) 11 SCC 511], which read as follows:-

"Recovery of public dues

13. Undoubtedly, public money should be recovered and recovery should be made expeditiously. But it does not mean that the financial institutions which are concerned only with the recovery of their loans, may be permitted to behave like property dealers and be permitted further to dispose of the secured assets in any unreasonable or arbitrary manner in flagrant violation of the statutory provisions.

14. A right to hold property is a constitutional right as well as a human right. A person cannot be deprived of his property except in accordance with the provisions of a statute. (Vide Lachhman Dass -vs- Jagat Ram [(2007) 10 SCC 448] and State of M.P. -vs- Narmada Bachao Andolan [(2011) 7 SCC 639]. Thus, the condition precedent for taking away someone's property or disposing of the secured assets, is that the authority must ensure compliance with the statutory provisions."

Referring to the same, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the decision in Mathew Varghese -vs- M.Amirtha Kumar [(2014) 5 SC 610] has held as follows:-

"43. The above principles laid down by this Court also make it clear that though the recovery of public dues should be made expeditiously, it should be in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law and that it should not frustrate a constitutional right, as well as t