ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 19th January 2011 passed by the learned single Judge in CWJC No. 82 of 2006, the petitioner Bihar State Co-operative Bank (hereinafter referred to as the Bank) and the Branch Manager of the Bankipur Branch, Patna have preferred this Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. 2. The matter at issue is the liability of the Bank to make good the loss to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (hereinafter referred to as “the Commissioner”) in accordance with Clause (x) of sub-section (3) of Section 8-F of The Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 3. It appears that the Bihar Rajya Beej Nigam Limited was, at the relevant time, in default of deposit of provident fund amount with the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Bihar. The Commissioner exercised his power to recover the outstanding dues of the Bihar Rajya Beej Nigam Limited by attaching its Bank Account and by recovery from the Bank Account. 4. The Commissioner took action to recover the amount in question from the Bank Account in exercise of powers conferred by sub-section (2) of Section 8-F of the Act. Notices issued by the Commissioner to the Bank on 22nd December 2004 and 21st February 2005 were not responded to by the Bank. In view of the Banks inaction to carry out the instructions issued under the notice, the Bank has been saddled with the liability in exercise of power conferred by Clause (x) to sub-section (3) of Section 8-F of the Act. 5. The action was challenged by the Bank under Article 226 of the Constitution in above CWJC No. 82 of 2006. According to the Bank, the Bank had never received the notices dated 22nd December 2004 and 21st February 2005. The only notice received by the Bank was that of 20th July 2005 which was promptly acted upon. 6. The petition was contested by the Commissioner. He asserted that the Bank had received the notices issued on 22nd December 2004 and 21st February 2005. 7. The learned single Judge has believed that earlier notices were indeed received by the Bank, but the Bank ignored to act upon it. The Bank was, therefore, liable to make good the loss suffered by the Commissioner. He asserted that the Bank had received the notices issued on 22nd December 2004 and 21st February 2005. 7. The learned single Judge has believed that earlier notices were indeed received by the Bank, but the Bank ignored to act upon it. The Bank was, therefore, liable to make good the loss suffered by the Commissioner. The learned single Judge has accordingly allowed the Writ Petition and has directed the Bank to make good the loss suffered by the Commissioner. Therefore, this Appeal. 8. We have heard the learned advocates extensively and have perused the record. 9. We are of the opinion that the finding recorded by the learned single Judge is based on inferences and surmises. The Bank, in its reply dated 16th November 2005, did categorically say that no notice allegedly issued on 22nd December 2004 and 21st February 2005 was received by the Bank, and that the Bank had promptly acted upon the notice dated 20th July 2005. In view of the categorical denial by the Bank and in absence of any proof of service by the Commissioner, in our opinion, the learned single Judge has manifestly erred in drawing adverse inference against the Bank and in holding that the Bank was liable to make good the loss. 10. For the aforesaid reasons, the Appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 19th January 2011 passed by the learned single Judge in CWJC No. 82 of 2006 is set aside. 11. CWJC No. 82 of 2006 is allowed. The impugned orders dated 30th November 2005 and the order dated 9th December 2005 are quashed and set aside.