Judgment Prafulla C. Pant, C.J. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner institution has challenged the notice dated 02.02.2010 (Copy of Annexure VIII to the writ petition) issued by the respondent authorities under Section 7A of Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short the "Act"). The petitioner has further challenged recovery notice dated 10.10.2007, issued by the respondent authorities for an amount of Rs. 12,79,244/- which is said to have been served on the petitioner on 19.03.2010. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper and records. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is an educational institution established in Shillong which came under provisions of Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 since the year 1982. The plea of the petitioner is that the petitioner was regularly making payments of the contributions required to be made under the Act. It is alleged that the respondents issued Memorandum No. 12/2/2007 dated 09.02.2007 under Section 7A of the Act. It is further alleged that the respondents have arbitrarily imposed interest under Section 7Q, and damages under Section 14B of the Act. It is further alleged that to avoid the controversy, the petitioner made payment of the entire interest amount sought to be recovered, and also some part of the damages, but by the impugned recovery vide Annexure XIV dated 10.10.2007 which has been served on the petitioner on 19.03.2010, the respondents are harassing the petitioner by attempting the amount which has already been paid to the respondents. In support of the above plea, the petitioner has annexed certain copies of challans as Annexures IV, V, VI, VII, VIII and IX. The petitioner has further annexed challans showing the payments made by it, for the outstanding dues of the period from 1982 to 2002, copies of which are annexed with Annexures XIV and XV of the writ petition. 3. In the affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the respondents, it is admitted that the petitioner institution was brought under the purview of Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 with effect from 06.03.1982. It is alleged that since the petitioner failed to make certain payments up to year 1997-1998, the interest and damages were imposed under Section 7Q and under Section 14B of the Act. It is alleged that since the petitioner failed to make certain payments up to year 1997-1998, the interest and damages were imposed under Section 7Q and under Section 14B of the Act. It is admitted in the affidavit-in-opposition that vide letter dated 12.02.2007, an amount of interest to the tune of Rs. 1,70,314/-, and damages to the tune of Rs. 11,08,930/- were sought to be recovered for the period from March, 1982 to September, 2002. As such, it is admitted that recovery certificate dated 10.10.2007 amounting to Rs. 12,79,244/- was issued against the petitioner. However, it is no where denied that the said notice was served on the petitioner in the year 2010. It is also not explained in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents as to whether the amount deposited by the petitioner as mentioned in the writ petition between the period 2007 and 2010 was taken into account or not. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner drew attention of this Court to Annexure XV to the writ petition showing that for the period of 1982-1997, damages amounting to Rs. 43,109/- were deposited on 02.07.2009, and dues on account of damages for the month of April, 2000 to November, 2002 amounting to Rs. 35,153/- were deposited on 02.07.2009, apart from amount of Rs. 25,340/- paid towards damages for the period March, 1995 to February, 2002 separately on 02.07.2009. All these three payments appear to have been made and received in cash as per copies of challans filed with Annexure XV. Apart from this, the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court to Annexures IV and V to the writ petition showing that towards outstanding dues on account of interest for the period of March, 1982 to September, 2002, amount of Rs. 70,314/- was deposited on 27.10.2008, and Rs. 1,00,000/- for the same period was deposited vide challan dated 09.03.2009 (Annexure VI to the writ petition). 5. Learned counsel for the respondents failed to deny the deposits made by the petitioner as above. As such, on perusal of Annexure IV, Annexure V and Annexure VI to the writ petition, it is clear that before the impugned notice Annexure XIV was slapped on the writ petitioner on 19.03.2010, the amount of Rs. 1,70,314/- had already been deposited with the respondents. As such, on perusal of Annexure IV, Annexure V and Annexure VI to the writ petition, it is clear that before the impugned notice Annexure XIV was slapped on the writ petitioner on 19.03.2010, the amount of Rs. 1,70,314/- had already been deposited with the respondents. As such, attempt made by the respondents in the year 2010, in pursuance to the notice dated 10.10.2007, without making adjustment of the above amount which was paid before 19.03.2010 when said notice was served on the petitioner, is nothing but harassment of the petitioner. Apart from this, some part of damages also appears to have been paid as discussed in the previous paragraph. Therefore, the impugned notice dated 10.10.2007 is liable to be quashed with the observations that the respondents may calculate the actual amount payable by the petitioner after adjusting the amount already paid by it on account of interest and damages. 6. As far as notice dated 02.02.2010 (Annexure VIII to the writ petition) is concerned, it is relevant to mention here that said notice has been issued under Section 30 of Code of Civil Procedure in the light of Section 7A of Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. The said Section of E.P.F.M.P. Act, empowers the respondents to make enquiry to determine the amount payable by an employer under the Act. By the notice (Annexure VIII to the writ petition), the respondents have asked the petitioner to bring the complete record in respect of the dues for the period of March, 2008 to June, 2008 and July, 2008 to November, 2008. Though the petitioner has successfully shown vide Annexures IXA, IXB, IXC, IXD and IXE that it has paid amount of Rs. 28,762/- for each of the months of March, 2008, April, 2008, May, 2008, June, 2008 and November, 2008 respectively, but merely for that reason, it cannot be said that the respondents have no authority to make enquiry to determine the amount, as such, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the notice (Annexure VIII to the writ petition) with the observation that the petitioner may produce the necessary record before the respondent authorities who shall taken into account the payments made by the writ petitioner including the ones as mentioned above. For the reasons as discussed above, the demand notice dated 10.10.2007 (Annexure XIV to the writ petition) issued by the respondents to the petitioner is hereby quashed with the observations made in the body of the judgment. However, the notice dated 02.02.2010 (Annexure VIII to the writ petition) is not interfered with subject to the observations made. No order as to costs.