JUDGMENT :- This is a petition filed by third person against the order of public auction issued by Recovery Officer, Employees Provident Fund Organisation, based upon a recovery certificate dated 8-4-2004 for attachment of the immovable property in respect of M/s. Vidarbha Weavers Central Coop. Society Ltd. i.e. respondent No.3 herein. There is no dispute that these proceedings and order passed are arising out of the provisions of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short "the Act"). 2. The relevant Clause 29, Rule 18 of Chapter XVII of the Bombay High Court (Appellate Side) Rules, 1960 is as under: "29 the order passed under the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. 3. In W.P. No.812 of 2007 (Ajabrao Choudhary Vs. The Principal, Kala Vanijya Mahavidyalaya and Ors.) by order dated 27-8-2008 (since reported in 2008(6) ALL MR 33), this Division Bench, while interpreting clause (40) of Rule 18 in question has noted in para-4 as under : "4. The Division Bench of Bombay High Court in Principal Micky School Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors., 2005(4) Mh.L.J. 1153; while considering the Appellate Side Rules, Chapter XVII and Rule 18 in question has already reiterated and elaborated the scheme in following words:10. Then comes Rule 18 of Chapter XVII which provides that notwithstanding anything contained in Rules 1,4 and 17 this Chapter - i.e. Chapter XVII applications under Articles 226 and 227 or under Articles 226 and 227 may be disposed of by the learned Single Judge of this Court and proceeds to enumerate the categories of orders or enactments which are to be dealt with by the learned Single Judge. It will thus be seen that provisions of Rule 18 of Chapter XVII is a provision made in relation to rules in Chapter XVII and therefore are rules which as contemplated by Rules 1 and 2, Chapter 1 provide for hearing by a learned Single Bench. As we have noticed above that Rules 1 and 2 both of Chapter 1 provide for exception in cases where it is otherwise provided for by these rules. Language of Rules 17 and 18 in the circumstances is required to be noted. As we have noticed above that Rules 1 and 2 both of Chapter 1 provide for exception in cases where it is otherwise provided for by these rules. Language of Rules 17 and 18 in the circumstances is required to be noted. Rule 18 of Chapter XVII says notwithstanding anything contained in Rules 1, 4 and 17 of this Chapter i.e. Chapter XVII the following applications mentioned in the said rule are to be heard by the learned Single Judge. It means Rule 18 is a provision which is a case where it is otherwise provided by these rules that the matters can be heard by the learned Single Judge. Clauses 1 to 43 of this Rule 18 provide various categories of orders passed by under various enactments which are required to be dealt with by a learned Single Judge of this Court." (Emphasis added) 4. In Jyoti Vs. State of Maharashtra [ 2006(2) Mh.L.J. 173 : (2006(2) ALL MR 196)], in the matter of show cause notice issued by the Commissioner under Section 16(1) of Maharashtra Zilla Parishad and Panchayat Samiti Act, while interpreting the said rule again observed as under : "12. In the facts of present case, there is no dispute that such proceedings are pending and after taking cognizance of complaint/application moved by applicants, the respondent No.3 thought it fit to issue notice to the petitioner. Thus decision to issue notice has been reached by said respondent and as such, the' show cause notice which is evidence of that decision, is an order which can be challenged before Single Judge of this Court:' In view of this, such petition lies before Single Judge, who has power to dispose of the matter falling under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution. 5. The submission is that the petitioner being third person, the present petition is before the Division Bench. Even as per explanation to the rule the action taken by the judicial or quasi-judicial authority, who is empowered to adjudicate under the statute, includes the present case of public auction also, as it is consequence of the order of attachment by the authority under the Act. The public auction notice cannot be issued independently unless there is basic order of attachment passed under the Act. 6. In view of above decisions (Ajabrao Choudhary Vs. The Principal, Kala Vanijya Mahavidyalaya and Ors. The public auction notice cannot be issued independently unless there is basic order of attachment passed under the Act. 6. In view of above decisions (Ajabrao Choudhary Vs. The Principal, Kala Vanijya Mahavidyalaya and Ors. (since reported in 2008(6) ALL MR 33) and Jyoti Vs. The State of Maharashtra (2006(2) ALL MR 196)) (supra), we see there is no reason that the matter should not be heard by Single Judge. The matter be placed before Single Judge accordingly. Ordered accordingly.