22.07.2026 Item no. 14 Court no. 30 g.b. 266012 WPA 12882 of 2023 With CAN 2 of 2023, CAN 5 of 2024, CAN 13 of 2026, CAN 14 of 2026 Mandeep Dudi & Anr. Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner I Regional Office Barrackpore & Ors. Mr. Krishnaraj Thakkar, Sr. Advocate Mr. Ashis Kr. Mukherjee Ms. Mayuri Ghosh Mr. Saurabh Prasad …..For the Petitioners Mr. Soumya Majumder, Sr. Advocate Mr. Zubeen Pandey Ms. Sanjukta Dutta Mr. Piyush Jain …… For the Respondent No.4 Mr. Debashis Saha Mr. Avirup Roy Sanyal Ms. Sucheta Pal Mr. Jyotishman Sarkar ….For the State Bank of India Mr. Shiv Chandra Prasad …..For the P. F. Authorities Mr. Avishek Guha Mr. Subhajit Das …..For the Respondent No.7 1. The writ application has been preferred challenging attachment notices dated 16th March, 2023 and 23rd May, 2023 and any further recovery action that might have been taken against the petitioners or any person associated therewith by the respondent Provident Fund authorities in relation to the dues of the respondent no.4 company for the period of operation of the mill by the respondent no.4. 2. On hearing the learned counsels for the parties and on perusal of the materials on record, it appears that the petitioner herein is an agent of the respondent no.4 herein. The respondent/Provident Fund Authority claimed dues for the period from 02/1993 to 11/2013, vide an order dated 2/9th July, 2021, against which the said orders of attachment were issued against the petitioner herein. 3. This Court in its judgement dated 14th July, 2026 in WPA 14863 of 2026 (Padam Mercantiles Private Limited & Anr.(Respondent no.4 herein) Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner – I, Regional Office Barrackpore & Ors. quashed and set aside the said notice dated 2/9th July, 2021. 4. In view of the said judgement, a formal order as to the attachment orders in this case is required to be passed in the present writ application. 5. Accordingly, the impugned orders of attachment dated 16th March, 2023 and 23rd May, 2023 in the present writ application, are hereby quashed and set aside. 6. The writ application is disposed of. 7. It is clarified that in case any amount has been recovered on the basis of the said orders of 2 attachment, the same be refunded to the petitioner herein along with interest within two months from the date of this order. In Re: CAN 14 of 2026 1. CAN 14 of 2026 has been preferred by the respondent no.4/ Padam Mercantiles Private Limited. The petitioners herein have preferred the said application praying for direction upon the respondent no.5, which is an exempted establishment, to refund the amount of Rs.50 lakhs, which was deposited with the respondent no.5, as directed vide an order dated 29.05.2025. 2. In view of the fact that the present writ application has been disposed of and the said deposit by the respondent no.4 as per the direction of the Court in the present case, vide an order dated 29.05.2023, and the order as corrected on 7th June, 2023 (at pages 21 and 22 of the writ application), is still with the respondent no.5 and also in view of the fact that the impugned order dated 2/9.07.2021 has been quashed and set aside in WPA 14863 of 2026, the amount deposited (Rs. 50 lakhs) by the respondent no.4 along with interest in the present case be returned/ refunded to the respondent no.4 within 30 days from the date of communication of this order. 3. CAN 14 of 2026 is accordingly disposed of. 3 4. At this stage Mr. Prasad, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 3 prays for stay of the order disposing of the present writ application for a period of four weeks. 5. Considering the fact that the order in the present writ application has been passed on the basis of a judgement passed in another writ application being WPA 14863 of 2026, wherein the said judgement has not been stayed, the prayer of Mr. Prasad cannot be considered in the present case. ( Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.) 4