Judgment :- (1.) The petitioners herein have challenged the decisions and/or actions of the respondent-Assistant Employees Provident Fund Commissioner, Port Blair on various grounds, mentioned in this writ petition. (2.) The petitioners have specifically challenged the validity and/or legality of the orders both dated 16th January, 2004 passed under Section 7A and 7Q of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (in short EPF and MP Act, 1952) by the respondent-Assistant Employees Provident Fund Commissioner on the ground that the same were passed ex parte and without giving adequate opportunity to the petitioners to explain the conduct. (3.) From the records also it appears that the aforesaid orders under Sections 7A and 7Q of the EPF and MP Act, 1952 have been passed ex parte by the respondent-Assistant Employees Provident Fund Commissioner, Port Blair. (4.) It has been submitted on behalf of the respondent authorities that in spite of granting repeated opportunities none appeared on behalf of the petitioners at the time of hearing of the matter. The learned Advocate of the respondents, however, fairly admitted before this Court that the representative of the petitioners although remained present on some occasions in the office of the respondent- Assistant Employees Provident Fund Commissioner with the relevant records but at the appropriate time when the matter was taken up for hearing none appeared on behalf of the petitioners before the respondent-Assistant Employees Provident Fund Commissioner and therefore, the respondent-Assistant Employees Provident Fund Commissioner ultimately had no other alternative but to take ex parte decision in the matter on the basis of the records produced on behalf of the said petitioners. (5.) From the records it also appears that a review application was submitted On behalf of the petitioners before the respondent-Assistant Employees Provident Fund Commissioner on 21st January, 2004 wherein certain facts have been specifically mentioned on behalf of the petitioners for the purpose of quashing the impugned orders passed by the said respondent-Assistant Employees Provident Fund Commissioner under Section 7A and 7Q of the EPF and MP Act, 1952 both dated 16th January, 2004. (6.) In the said review application it has also been specifically mentioned that the Managing Director of the petitioner-firm has personally appeared before the said respondent- Assistant Employees Provident Fund Commissioner on various occasions alongwith the relevant documents although the said respondent-Assistant Employees Provident Fund Commissioner by the order dated 3rd February, 2004 rejected the aforesaid review application of the petitioner without assigning any reason. (7.) Admittedly, in the aforesaid review application various important facts have been mentioned on behalf of the petitioners which were neither denied nor even dealt with by the respondent- Assistant Employees Provident Fund Commissioner while rejecting the review application. (8.) The order passed by the respondent-Assistant Employees Provident Fund Commissioner on 3rd February, 2004 rejecting the review application submitted on behalf of the petitioners is an unreasoned order and therefore, the same is liable to be quashed. (9.) It is not in dispute that the respondent-Assistant Employees Provident Fund Commissioner has passed both the impugned orders under Section 7A and 7Q of the EPF and MP Act, 1952 on 16th January, 2004 without hearing the submissions of the petitioners herein. (10.) It has been repeatedly held by this Court that the quasi-judicial authorities while deciding the matter will grant adequate opportunity to the concerned parties to defend, their interests in the matter. (11.) In the present case, from the records it appears that the hearing of this matter was time to time adjourned since 1999 on the ground of non-availability of the hearing officer and also on the ground of shifting of the office of the concerned respondent apart from the facts that the petitioners also did not appear on many occasions. (12.) In any event, from the representation of the petitioners dated 21st January, 2004 it appears that the representative of the petitioners was present at least on 15th December, 2004 in the office of the respondent-Assistant Employees Provident Fund Commissioner when the said respondent concluded the hearing of the matter even without recording the presence of the said representative of the petitioners and granting him any opportunity to defend the case. It has been, however, recorded in the official records that nobody was present on behalf of the petitioners on that occasion. It has been, however, recorded in the official records that nobody was present on behalf of the petitioners on that occasion. (13.) The learned Advocate of the respondents submits that the representative of the petitioners attended the office of the respondent-Assistant Employees Provident Fund Commissioner before the scheduled time with the relevant records but since none appeared on behalf of the petitioners at the relevant point of time on that day, the said respondent-Assistant Employees Provident Fund Commissioner had no other option but to conclude the hearing without taking note of the presence of the representative of the petitioners during the earlier part of the said date of the final hearing. (14.) It has, however, not been disputed by the learned Advocate of the respondents that the representative of the petitioners submitted the relevant records on that final hearing date i.e. on 15th December, 2004 in the office of the respondent- Assistant Employees Provident Fund Commissioner, which according to the said learned Advocate of the respondents, have been duly considered by the concerned respondent, namely, the Assistant Employees Provident Fund Commissioner. (15.) Having heard the learned Advocate of the respective parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the respondent- Assistant Employees Provident Fund Commissioner should have granted another opportunity to the petitioners to explain the documents before issuing the final orders under Section 7A and 7Q of the EPF and MP Act, 1952. Furthermore, while considering the review application filed on behalf of the petitioners, the said respondent-Assistant Employees Provident Fund Commissioner should have also passed a reasoned order. (16.) Since the review application was rejected by the respondent-Assistant Employees Provident Fund Commissioner without assigning any reason, I have no other option but to quash the same on that ground alone. (17.) It has been further submitted by the learned Advocate of the petitioners that the respondent-Assistant Employees Provident Fund Commissioner had wrongfully and illegally issued the order of attachment in order to recover the amount mentioned in the impugned orders dated 16th January, 2004 before expiry of the prescribed time limit as mentioned in the aforementioned orders. (17.) It has been further submitted by the learned Advocate of the petitioners that the respondent-Assistant Employees Provident Fund Commissioner had wrongfully and illegally issued the order of attachment in order to recover the amount mentioned in the impugned orders dated 16th January, 2004 before expiry of the prescribed time limit as mentioned in the aforementioned orders. (18.) From the records also it appears that although the respondent- Assistant Employees Provident Fund Commissioner granted 15 days time to the petitioners for depositing the requisite amount pursuant to the impugned orders dated 16th January, 2004 passed under Section 7A and 7Q of the EPF and. MP Act, 1952 but before the expiry of the requisite time period, the respondent-Assistant Employees Provident Fund Commissioner issued the order of attachment directing the Chief Manager, Syndicate Bank, Port Blair to deduct the sum of Rs.35,16,388/- from the account of the petitioners. (19.) The learned Advocate of the petitioners further submits that the respondent-Assistant Employees Provident Fund Commissioner recovered the sum of Rs. 16,19,010.69 from the overdraft account of the petitioners maintained with the Syndicate Bank, Port Blair. (20.) The petitioners have also annexed document with the affidavit-in- reply wherein it has been specifically mentioned that on 03.02.2004 the aforesaid sum of Rs.16,19,010.69 has been withdrawn from the overdraft account of the petitioners by the respondent- Assistant Employees Provident Fund Commissioner. (21.) When an establishment had fallen in arrears towards the Provident Fund dues then the Provident Fund authorities cannot proceed to recover the same from the unutilized and unavailed cash credit or the overdraft accounts of the said establishment by considering the said amount as the amount of the establishment in the hands of the concerned Bank. (22.) In the present case, the respondent-Assistant Employees Provident Fund Commissioner has wrongfully and illegally withdrawn a sum of Rs.16,19,010.69 from the overdraft account of the petitioners maintained with the Syndicate Bank, Port Blair and therefore, the concerned respondent is bound to refund the said amount to the aforesaid account of the petitioners as the same was recovered wrongly and without following the provisions of the law. (23.) For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the impugned ex parte orders both dated 16th January, 2004 passed under Sections 7A and 7Q of the EPF and MP Act, 1952 cannot be sustained in law on the ground that adequate opportunities were not granted to the petitioners to defend their interests even though the representative of the petitioners was present at least on the final date of hearing with relevant records, even assuming that the said representative was not present at the appropriate moment as alleged by the learned Advocate of the respondents. (24.) In the aforesaid circumstances, the impugned orders both dated 16th January, 2004 stand quashed. (25.) The respondent authorities are, however, granted liberty to proceed afresh against the petitioners upon due observance of the principles of natural justice and procedural justice and also complying with the provisions of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. (26.) The respondent-Assistant Employees Provident Fund Commissioner is also directed to refund the aforesaid amount of Rs.16,19,010.69 in the overdraft account of the petitioners in the Syndicate Bank without any further delay but positively within a week from the date of communication of this order. (27.) However, the balance amount already recovered from the said petitioners should be retained by the respondent-Assistant Employees Provident Fund Commissioner till the final disposal of the matter in terms of this order. (28.) In the event, the respondent authorities do not initiate any further proceeding against the petitioners within a period of three months from date, then the respondent-Assistant Employees Provident Fund Commissioner will also refund the balance amount lo the petitioners immediately after expiry of the aforesaid period. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition stands allowed. There will be, however, no order as to costs.