ORDER : Paresh Upadhyay, J. The controversy in both these petitions centers around the inter-connected actions of the Authorities of the Provident Fund Department, and the facts in both the petitions have bearing on each other, therefore, both these petitions are heard, considered and disposed of by this common order. Special Civil Application No.13617 of 2012 is by an Establishment and Special Civil Application No.10151 of 2012 is by the Banker of the said Establishment i.e. HSBC Limited. 2. The Establishment has approached this Court with the grievance against the Authorities of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Vadodara, in substance agitating that, though the order dated 27.04.2012 passed by the respondent Authority, in exercise of power under Section 14(B) of the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, levying damages, was challenged by the petitioner Establishment before the Employees' Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, and further, though the petitioner Establishment was granted protection by the Tribunal, in illegal and high-handed manner, the respondent Authorities initiated coercive actions against the petitioner Establishment, and inspite of the further clarificatory order by the Tribunal, the respondent Authorities continued to harass the petitioner in absolutely illegal manner. It is also agitated that, though during the pendency of this petition, the petitioner succeeded on merits before the Tribunal, even then the arm twisting tactic continued on the part of the respondent Authorities. The pressure tactic was extended even to the Banker of the petitioner i.e. HSBC Bank, which has also moved this Court by petition being Special Civil Application No.10151 of 2012, which is also being decided by a separate order of today's date. 3. The pressure tactic was extended even to the Banker of the petitioner i.e. HSBC Bank, which has also moved this Court by petition being Special Civil Application No.10151 of 2012, which is also being decided by a separate order of today's date. 3. In the present petition (Special Civil Application No.13617 of 2012), the prayer clause is as under : "7(A) A writ of mandamus or a writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of mandamus or a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction be issued to declare and hold that the action of the respondents in recovery the amount ofRs.1,50,64,852/- from the petitioner is illegal, unjustified and arbitrary and further be pleased to direct the respondents to immediately refund the amount of Rs.1,50,64,852/- with 18% interest from 21.07.2012; (B) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to hold and declare that action of recovery under Section 8(F) of the Act initiated by the respondents is illegal, unjustified, void ab initio and without jurisdiction and accordingly, be pleased to quash and set aside the illegal action of the respondents in coercively recovering the amount from the petitioner; (C) In view of deliberate and willful defiance of the order of the learned Tribunal as well as illegal and unjustified action of the respondents, appropriate directions may kindly be issued to the Head Office of Employees' Provident Fund Organisation, New Delhi to initiate inquiry against the respondents;" 4.1 Learned advocate for the petitioner Establishment has stated the following facts, and there is no dispute on material aspect, even by the respondent Authorities. 4.2 On 27.04.2012, the respondent No.1 passed an order levying damages under Section 14(B) of the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act. 4.3 Against the said order dated 27.04.2012, the petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 7-I of the Act before the Employees' Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi being ATA No.424 (5) 2012, wherein, the Tribunal directed the respondent Authorities not to take any coercive measures till the disposal of the appeal, on condition that petitioner Establishment deposits an amount ofRs.60 lacs, within a period of eight weeks from the date of order, on 14.05.2012. 4.4 Pursuant to said order dated 14.05.2012, the petitioner Establishment deposited an amount ofRs.60 lacs with the Tribunal by way of Demand Draft No.199307, on 11.07.2012. 4.4 Pursuant to said order dated 14.05.2012, the petitioner Establishment deposited an amount ofRs.60 lacs with the Tribunal by way of Demand Draft No.199307, on 11.07.2012. The Tribunal has accepted this to be due compliance of its order dated 14.05.2012. 4.5 Despite the above compliance, the respondent Authorities started coercive recovery against the petitioner Establishment. 4.6 On 13.07.2012, a show-cause was issued to the petitioner Establishment to show cause, within three days, as to why recovery proceedings be not initiated against the petitioner Establishment. 4.7 According to petitioner, the said show-cause notice was served as late as on 08.08.2012 and until that, the said show cause notice was kept with the respondents deliberately with a view to keep the petitioner Establishment in dark and before the said show-cause notice was served upon the petitioner Establishment, another show-cause notice dated 16.07.2012 came to be issued. 4.8 On the very same day, i.e. 16.07.2012 itself, without following any procedure, the respondent No.2 - Recovery Officer passed an order under Section 8(F) of the Act against the Banker of the petitioner Establishment i.e. HSBC Limited, and on the same day, certificate of recovery was issued. 4.9 Another show-cause notice was issued on 17.07.2012 under Section 8(F) of the Act to the Banker of the petitioner Establishment and the Bank was threatened for further action as per law as mentioned in the said show-cause notice. (This and consequential notice dated 19.07.2012 against the Bank, is the subject matter of Special Civil Application No.10151 of 2012) 4.10 The petitioner Establishment made a detailed representation on 17.07.2012 to the respondent No.1 stating that the order of the Tribunal is fully complied with. 4.11 Again, on 18.07.2012, the petitioner Establishment approached the respondent Authorities and explained the entire situation. 4.12 On 18.07.2012 itself, the respondent No.1 Authority was served with the order of the Tribunal, as also the letter was written to the respondent No.1 Authority by the petitioner Establishment. 4.13 Since the non-compliance of the order of the Tribunal dated 14.05.2012 was the basis for the respondent Authorities to take coercive action against the petitioner, and according to Tribunal, there was no defiance of its order, the petitioner had moved the Tribunal itself for appropriate clarification, which the Tribunal gave by order dated 18.07.2012, which is on record, which reads as under. "Order Dated : 18th July, 2012 Present : Sh.S.C.Verma, Advocate for the Appellant. Ms. "Order Dated : 18th July, 2012 Present : Sh.S.C.Verma, Advocate for the Appellant. Ms. Manita Verma, Advocate for respondent. The appellant in the present case has filed a Miscellaneous Application. In the said application the appellant has submitted that in the present matter the operation of the impugned order was stayed by this Tribunal vide order dated 14.05.2012 subject to deposit ofRs.60 lakh. The said direction of this Tribunal has already been complied with. However, the respondent authority has attached the bank account of the Appellant Establishment vide order dated 16.07.2012. So, it is prayed that the respondent be directed to de-attach the bank accounts. 2. Since, the appellant has already complied with the direction of this Tribunal and the appeal has been admitted. The respondent is once again directed to adhere to the order of this Tribunal dated 14.05.2012 and not to take any coercive measures for implementation of the impugned order. The respondent is further directed to de-freeze the bank accounts of the appellant establishment forthwith. The case be now listed for further hearing for 8th of October, 2012." 4.14 Inspite of above order having been passed, after hearing the representative of the respondent Authorities, and further, though the said order was put to the notice of the respondent Authorities, in clear defiance of the orders of the Tribunal, on 19.07.2012, another show-cause notice came to be issued to the Banker of the petitioner Establishment as to why warrant of arrest be not issued. This was one of the cause of action for HSBC Limited to file the petition before this Court being Special Civil Application No.10151 of 2012. 4.15 On 19.07.2012 itself, the Bank of the petitioner Establishment withheld the amount ofRs.1,50,64,852/-. 4.16 On 19.07.2012, the petitioner Establishment made a representation to the respondent No.1 Authority. 4.17 On the face of even the clarificatory order of the Tribunal dated 18.07.2012, according to petitioner, only with a view to further mount the pressure, the respondent No.1 Authority also issued a show-cause notice as to why a warrant of arrest be not issued against the Banker of the Establishment i.e. HSBC Limited. The Authorities initiated coercive action against the Banker of the Banker of the Establishment, i.e. the State Bank of India and amount was realised. The Authorities initiated coercive action against the Banker of the Banker of the Establishment, i.e. the State Bank of India and amount was realised. It is stated that pursuant to the order dated 19.07.2012, the Banker of HSBC Limited, i.e. State Bank of India, transferred an amount ofRs.1,50,64,852/- by way of Demand Draft No.368004 on 21.07.2012, which was accepted by the respondent No.1 Authority. 5. Thus, though the petitioner was protected by the order of the Tribunal dated 14.05.2012 against the coercive actions of the respondent Authorities on deposit ofRs.60 lacs, which the petitioner had deposited as well, and which was the due compliance of the Tribunal's order dated 14.05.2012, which is even clarified by the Tribunal itself vide order dated 18.07.2012, coercive actions, as narrated above, were initiated, continued and concluded by the respondent Authorities. The net effect thereof was that, the petitioner deposited an amount ofRs.60 lacs with the Tribunal, and over and above that, the amount assessed by the respondent Authority was coercively recovered in toto as stated above. This action of the respondent Authorities is the subject matter of this petition. It is recorded that, during pendency of this petition, the appeal before the Tribunal is allowed on merits vide order dated 18.03.2013. 6. At least, after the appeal of the petitioner was allowed by the Tribunal, the amount recovered by the respondent Authorities, ought to have been refunded to the petitioner, which was not done. Therefore, an interim application was moved by the petitioner on 08.04.2013 being Civil Application No.4830 of 2013 before this Court inter alia praying that atleast now, the amount ofRs.1,50,64,852/- be permitted to be withdrawn by the petitioner. Even the said application was contested by the respondent authorities by filing a reply dated 03.05.2013 mainly contending that the order of the Tribunal dated 18.03.2013 is being challenged separately by the respondent Authorities and therefore, the application be dismissed. It is noted that by that time, the petition challenging the order of the Tribunal was not even attempted to be listed for hearing by the respondent Authorities before the Court. It is noted that by that time, the petition challenging the order of the Tribunal was not even attempted to be listed for hearing by the respondent Authorities before the Court. The said petition being Special Civil Application No.8429 of 2013 was thereafter listed for hearing, which was dismissed vide order dated 06.05.2013, with cost, by this Court, inter alia observing therein (in para 5.1) to the effect that, the said was not a bonafide litigation taken out by the petitioner Authorities - the present respondents. 7. Only thereafter, the application of the present petitioner was allowed by this Court and he was permitted to withdraw the money which was lying with the Registry of this Court, with interest accrued thereon. Thus, now the amount which was arbitrarily recovered by the respondent Authorities from the petitioner has gone back to the petitioner. However, while deciding Civil Application No.4830 of 2013, this Court had in para 4 recorded as under. "4. Learned advocate for the applicant has further vehemently submitted that if the totality is taken into consideration, an unmistakable picture emerges where the authorities have acted not only arbitrarily, but also with lack of bona-fide, to say the least. This point is not adjudicated in this application, reserving liberty to learned advocate for the applicant, to agitate the same in the petition, which is large open before this Court. One more application, being Civil Application No.3371 of 2012 in Special Civil Application No.11997 of 2012 is also listed today before this Court, wherein also the applicant has made similar grievance. The said application is also being adjourned to 19.06.2013, which may be considered along with these matters." 8.1 In above factual background, the Banker of the petitioner Establishment i.e. HSBC Limited, has also approached this Court by way of petition being Special Civil Application No.10151 of 2012 against the respondent No.1 Authority. The prayer clause of the said petition is as under. The prayer clause of the said petition is as under. "(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of or a writ in the nature of Certiorari and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 16.07.2012 passed as well as the impugned Show Cause Notice dated 17.07.2012 and 19.07.2012 at Annexure "A" (Colly.) issued by the Recovery Officer, Employees' Provident Fund Organisation, Regional Office, Vadodara." 8.2 This Court (Coram : Hon'ble Smt. Justice Abhilashakumari) had, vide a reasoned order dated 24.07.2012, recorded on the petition filed by the Banker, stayed the execution and implementation of the order dated 16.07.2012 and show-cause notices dated 17.07.2012 and 19.07.2012. 9. It also needs to be recorded that, during pendency of these petition, pursuant to the interim order of this Court dated 21.12.2012 (Coram : Hon'ble Mr.Justice K.S.Jhaveri), an amount ofRs.1,50,64,852/- was ordered to be deposited with the Registry of this Court and the said amount was deposited with the Registry of this Court on 28.12.2012, which was directed to be invested in the Fixed Deposit. 10. Learned advocates for the petitioners have contended that the glaring facts as recorded above, speaks a lot about the arbitrary exercise of power by the Authorities of Provident Fund Department and though, at this stage, because of subsequent developments, which are recorded above, no direction may be required to be issued to the Authorities, this Court may hold that the action was illegal and arbitrary and exemplary cost be awarded. 11. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent Department has defended the actions of the Authorities and she has taken the Court through the affidavits filed in both the petitions dated 21.08.2012 & 19.12.2012 on behalf of the Department. It is sought to be contended that, the representation of the Establishment along with the clarificatary order of the Tribunal dated 18.07.2012 was received by the office of the Authorities, but it was lying in the registry and therefore, cognizance thereof could not be taken. 12. It is sought to be contended that, the representation of the Establishment along with the clarificatary order of the Tribunal dated 18.07.2012 was received by the office of the Authorities, but it was lying in the registry and therefore, cognizance thereof could not be taken. 12. Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties and having gone through the material on record, this Court finds that, on the face of the facts narrated above, over which there is no dispute on any material aspect, a clear picture emerges where, the Authorities have not only acted in high-handed and arbitrary manner, but have even tried to overreach the proceedings before the Tribunal, and have succeeded also, in sabotaging it. However, in view of subsequent developments, which are narrated above, including the final order of the Tribunal dated 18.03.2013, and unsuccessfully challenging the same by the Department before this Court in Special Civil Application No.8429 of 2013 as recorded in order dated 06.05.2013, and order of this Court dated 10.05.2013 recorded on Civil Application No.4830 of 2013 in Special Civil Application No.13617 of 2012, no further order, giving any direction to the Authorities, is required to be passed by this Court. 13.1 For the reasons recorded above, both these petitions are allowed. 13.2 It is held that the actions against the Establishment and the Bank, which is the subject matter of these petitions, were illegal, arbitrary and high-handed exercise of powers by the respondent Authorities. So far grant of relief at this stage is concerned, it is recorded that, so far the Establishment i.e. the petitioner of Special Civil Application No.13617 of 2012 is concerned, the principal amount is already refunded to the petitioner and therefore no direction needs to be given in that regard. The period during which the said amount had remained with the Registry of this Court, is already returned to the petitioner with interest, accrued thereon. However, the period during which the said amount had remained with the respondent Authorities, the petitioner Establishment is entitled to claim interest. Therefore, it is directed that the respondent Authorities shall make payment of interest @ 12% p.a. onRs.1,50,64,852/- for the period from 21.07.2012 to 28.12.2012. This amount shall be paid by the respondent Authorities to the petitioner of Special Civil Application No.13617 of 2012 within a period of two months from today. Therefore, it is directed that the respondent Authorities shall make payment of interest @ 12% p.a. onRs.1,50,64,852/- for the period from 21.07.2012 to 28.12.2012. This amount shall be paid by the respondent Authorities to the petitioner of Special Civil Application No.13617 of 2012 within a period of two months from today. For the purpose of prescribing interest at the rate of 12% p.a., this Court has kept in view the decision of this Court dated 23.07.2013 recorded on Special Civil Application No.10357 of 2013, which was the subject matter of an unsuccessful appeal before the Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.936 of 2013, and which is confirmed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in SLP (Civil) No.29883 of 2013 vide order dated 04.10.2013. 13.3 So far grant of relief to the Bank is concerned, it is recorded that the action by the respondent Authorities against the Bank had started as a consequence of actions against the petitioner Establishment and since the controversy with the said Establishment itself is set at rest, as recorded above, the order and notices issued against the Bank impugned in the petition being Special Civil Application No.10151 of 2012, which were already stayed by this Court, would not survive at this stage, and the same are quashed and set aside. 13.4 It is also recorded that the manner and method in which the respondent Authorities have acted against both the petitioners, as recorded above, leaves no room to hold that, it was illegal, arbitrary and high-handed exercise of power, which may warrant imposition of cost. Further, the present one is one more instance which has come to the notice of this Court, in the chain of many, pertaining to Surat and Vadodara Regional Offices of the Provident Fund Department. This Court has already issued directions to the higher Authorities of the respondent Department, including to the Ministry of Labour, Union of India, reference to which can be made to some of the orders of this Court as under. This Court has already issued directions to the higher Authorities of the respondent Department, including to the Ministry of Labour, Union of India, reference to which can be made to some of the orders of this Court as under. (i) In the common judgment and order dated 23.07.2013 recorded on Special Civil Applications No.10357 of 2013 and No.10628 of 2013, this Court has, in the operative part, inter alia observed and directed that Central Provident Fund Commissioner, New Delhi is directed to look into the functioning of Surat Regional Office of Provident Fund Organisation and take corrective measures if any that he may think proper. While giving the said direction, it was further directed to take into consideration the facts of the cases which were referred to in paragraph 8 of the said judgment. The said judgment and order was challenged before the Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.936 of 2013, and before Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.29883 of 2013. Hon'ble the Apex Court has dismissed the said appeal, observing that there is no reason to interfere in the said order. (ii) While recording judgment and order dated 30.09.2013 in Special Civil Application No.11997 of 2012, with cognate matters, this Court has made certain observations in paragraph 7 thereof. There is no reason to assume that, the higher Authorities of the Provident Fund Organisation will not look into the matter with due seriousness. Therefore, inspite of the observations of this Court in paragraph 4 of the order dated 10.05.2013 in Civil Application No.4830 of 2013, which was filed in one of these petitions itself, this Court has restrained from imposing cost while disposing of these petitions. Rule made absolute in each petition, with no order as to costs. Writ Petition Allowed.