Ranchi Municipal Corporation, Commissioner, Jyoti Kumar Singh, Ranchi v. Employee’s Provident Fund Organization, Ranchi

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR For the Petitioner For the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 : Mr. P.A.S. Pati, Advocate ----- : Mr. Nipun Bakshi, Advocate For the Respondent No. 4 Mr. Rohan Kashyap, Advocate : Mr. Gyanendra Kumar, Advocate Mr. Rohit Ranjan Sinha, Advocate ----- 02/29.03.2022 The present writ petition has been quashing/setting aside the order of attachment of bank account bearing Ref. No. JH/RO/RNC/CC/JH/RAN/32891/2021/1801B/36137 dated 16.03.2022 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition) issued to the Branch Manager, Bank of India, Vikash Bhawan Branch, Ranchi purportedly under Section 8F(3) of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act, 1952”) for recovery of a sum of Rs. 6,50,35,158/- even though the petitioner’s review application under Section 7-B of the Act, 1952 is already pending consideration before the respondent no. 2 – the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II, Regional Office, Ranchi. Further prayer has been made for issuance of direction upon the respondent nos. 1 to 3 to desist and refrain from taking any coercive action for recovery of a sum of Rs. 6,50,35,158/- till disposal of the petitioner’s review application which was filed before the respondent no. 2 on 16.02.2022 and the same remains pending. Mr. Nipun Bakshi, learned counsel for the petitioner, on instruction, submits that the aforesaid amount has already been realized by the respondent authorities. It is also submitted that the review application filed by the petitioner under Section 7-B of the Act, 1952 has also been dismissed by the respondent no. 2 on 15.03.2022, though a copy of the same was received by the petitioner through ordinary post on 21.03.2022 and thereafter, the said order was placed for consideration of the Law Officer, Ranchi Municipal Corporation on

24.03.2022 after institution of the present writ petition. Moreover, even before serving the order dated 15.03.2022 to the petitioner, the respondent no. 2 has issued attachment order on 16.03.2022 itself. The petitioner had not received any intimation about fixing of any date of hearing of the review application dated 16.02.2022. Be that as it may. Considering the fact that the amount in question has already been realized by the respondents and the order under Section 7-B of the Act, 1952 has also been passed, there is no reason to further proceed in the present matter. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. The petitioner is, however, at liberty to take appropriate recourse as provided under law against the orders dated 14.01.2022 and 15.03.2022 passed by the respondent no. 2 under Sections 7-A and 7-B of the Act, 1952 respectively. I.A. No. 2525 of 2022 also stands disposed of accordingly. Manish (Rajesh Shankar, J.)