JUDGMENT : Amit Rawal, J. This order of mine shall dispose of CWP No. 7166 and 7176 of 2013 titled as Regional Provident Fund Commissioner v. Punjab Fibres Ltd. and Others. Challenge in the present writ petition is to the order dated 11.09.2012 (Annexure P-12) passed by the learned Employees' Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi-respondent No. 4, whereby the appeal filed by the respondent No. 2-Auction Purchaser against the order dated 24.02.2012 passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II, Jalandhar under Section 14-B of the Employees' Provident Funds and Misc. Provisions Act, 1952, has been allowed. Mr. Ajay Singla, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that immoveable assets of Punjab Fibres Ltd. was sold by the respondent No. 3-IFCI Limited which failed to discharge the loan liability and respondent No. 2-Ashajyot Mercantile (P) Ltd. was successful in purchasing the immoveable assets of respondent No. 1. It has been pointed out that as per the terms and conditions of tender document particularly Clause 2.7, it was made clear that outstanding liability of the Unit shall be met by the purchaser. Clause 2.7 read thus: "2.7. The Unit may have certain outstanding liabilities which are to be met by the purchaser and which will be over and above the purchase consideration. The prospective purchaser may carry out due-diligence in respect of likely liability pertaining to the unit before submitting the tender. It may be noted that the purchaser will be responsible for meeting these liabilities, if arise, and IFCI Ltd. will not be liable to meet any such liabilities whatsoever." 2. Respondent No. 2 aggrieved against the order dated 09.11.2010 passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal-I, New Delhi, preferred an appeal before DRAT i.e. Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Delhi vide Appeal No. 435 of 2010 and submitted that they were/are willing to pay the dues towards the Unit, if and when arises. The DRAT, vide order dated 23.11.2010, after noticing the statement made by the respondent No. 2-Auction Purchaser passed the following order: "Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Appeal No. 435/2010 In S.A. No. 07/2010 (Delhi-I) Ashjyot Mercantile (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs. IFCI Ltd. 23.11.2010 Mr. Justice J.M. Malik Present: Mr. Vivek Sharma, counsel for the appellant alongwith Mr. G.S. Shekhawat, authorized signatory of the appellant. Mr. Suresh Dutt Dobhal, counsel for the respondent No. 1-IFCI Ltd. Mr. Vipul Pandey representing Mr. IFCI Ltd. 23.11.2010 Mr. Justice J.M. Malik Present: Mr. Vivek Sharma, counsel for the appellant alongwith Mr. G.S. Shekhawat, authorized signatory of the appellant. Mr. Suresh Dutt Dobhal, counsel for the respondent No. 1-IFCI Ltd. Mr. Vipul Pandey representing Mr. B.S. Nagar, Counsel for respondent No. 3. Counsel for the appellant and counsel for the respondent-IFCI Ltd. present. Counsel for respondent No. 3 also present. Arguments heard. At this stage, counsel for the appellant wants to make a statement who is present alongwith Mr. G.S. Shekhawat. He submits that the appellant is willing to pay the dues on the unit if and when arise and crystalised by the authorized government agency in point 2.7 of tendered document. Counsel for the respondent-IFCI has no objection. He gives his consent to this factual situation. In view of this, the bank will issue the sale certificate and handover the peaceful possession to the appellant within seven or thirty days as per agreement after the deposit of the said amount. Subject to these terms and conditions, the appellant does not press his appeal. The appeal is therefore disposed of as stated above. Copy of this order be furnished to the parties as per law and one copy be sent to the Ld. DRT forthwith. Sd/- Chairman" 3. The said order was modified on 13.12.2010, which read thus as under: "Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Miscellaneous Case No. 891/2010 Appeal No. 435/2010 In SA No. 07/2010 (Delhi-I) Ashjyot Mercantile (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs. IFCI Ltd. 13.12.2010 Mr. Justice J.M. Malik Present: Counsel for the applicant present. Ms. Usha Mahant, Counsel for respondent-IFCI Ltd. Mr. Rahul Sharma representing Mr. B.S. Nagar, counsel for respondent No. 3. Counsel for the parties present. Arguments heard. In the first page in the last para of my order dated 23.11.2010 I had mentioned, "after the deposit of the said amount'. I have heard both the counsel for the parties. The necessary correction be made and it be replaced by the words after the deposit of the balance amount". Since the balance amount stands deposited, therefore, IFCI Ltd. is directed to issue sale certificate within 15 days from today along with possession. The matter stands disposed of. Copies of this order be furnished to the parties as per law and one copy be sent to the Ltd. DRT forthwith. Sd/- Chairman" 4. Since the balance amount stands deposited, therefore, IFCI Ltd. is directed to issue sale certificate within 15 days from today along with possession. The matter stands disposed of. Copies of this order be furnished to the parties as per law and one copy be sent to the Ltd. DRT forthwith. Sd/- Chairman" 4. During the interregnum, assessment order under Section 7-A of the Employees' Provident Fund and Misc. Provisions Act, 1952 came to be passed. 5. Since the aforementioned order was not complied with, the Employees Provident Fund Commissioner passed the final order dated 24.02.2012 (Annexure P-9) under Sections 7Q and 14B of the Act and raised additional demand from November 1999 to October 2010 under Sections 7Q and 14B of the Act. 6. Mr. Ajay Singla, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that respondent No. 2 assailed the aforementioned order by filing appeal before the Appellate Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal while noticing the fact that respondent No. 2 had already made the payment of amount assessed under Section 7A of the Act and, therefore, the alleged demand under Sections 7Q and 14B of the Act cannot be fastened upon it on the premise that there was no evidence on record to show that respondent No. 2 had stepped into the shoes of the respondent No. 1. 7. He submits that order passed under Sections 7Q and 14B is consequential to the order passed under Section 7A of the Act, and since there was condition in the auction notice that it is the Auction Purchaser who had to discharge the liability, therefore, the liability under Employees' Provident Fund and Misc. Provisions Act also discharged by the respondent No. 2. 8. Mr. Ashim Aggarwal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent submits that respondent No. 2 had made the statement before DRAT and it honoured the statement by tendering demand draft of Rs. 50 lacs, seven cheques of Rs. 67,74,470/- and others for an amount of 29,70,280/- dated 29.07.2011, 06.07.2011 (Annexures P-6 and P-7) amounting to Rs. 2.95 crores which contained element/assessment under Sections 7A and 7Q and 14B of the Act. 9. The Employees Provident Fund Commissioner is unnecessarily raising the demand against respondent No. 2 whereas respondent No. 1 is still in existence as it has another Unit. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and appraised the paper book 11. 2.95 crores which contained element/assessment under Sections 7A and 7Q and 14B of the Act. 9. The Employees Provident Fund Commissioner is unnecessarily raising the demand against respondent No. 2 whereas respondent No. 1 is still in existence as it has another Unit. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and appraised the paper book 11. The Appellate Tribunal after noticing the contention and factual aspect found that as per the language enshrined under Section 17B of the Act, transferee would not be aware of the reason of the default and, therefore, even an opportunity of hearing was not given to the respondent No. 2. There is no evidence which has been led on behalf of Employees Provident Fund Commissioner, that, respondent No. 1 i.e. Punjab Fibre Ltd. had ceased to exist. Since, it is a matter of record that Punjab Fibre Ltd. has another Unit running at U.P. Employees Provident Fund Commissioner is at liberty to initiate the proceedings under Sections 7Q and 14B of the Act. The sale certificate in favour of respondent No. 2 was issued on 15.12.2010. Since respondent No. 2 had paid the sum of Rs. 2.95 crores towards liability under Section 7A part payment towards 7Q and 14B of the Act, the action of the petitioner against respondent No. 2 by raising additional demand under section 7B and 14B of the Act particularly when respondent No. 1 is in existence, is not only fallacious but misconceived. 12. There is no evidence of fact or record to establish that respondent No. 1 had ever acquired establishment of Punjab Fibre Ltd.-respondent No. 1/C. 13. The Appellate Tribunal while interpreting the provision of Section 17B of the Act found that it pertains to only transfer of establishment but in the present case, there is no case of transfer. At the best, Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II, Jalandhar would have a right to recover the outstanding dues out of the sale proceeds from IFCI. 14. Since, the Employees Provident Fund Commissioner has failed to prove on record or lead unclinching evidence, that there was mens rea on the part of the respondent No. 2, respondent No. 2 cannot be fastened the liability of payment of interest and damages and interest under Sections 7Q and 14B of the Act. In view of what has been observed, there is no merit in the writ petition. In view of what has been observed, there is no merit in the writ petition. The findings rendered by the Appellate Authority are/is hereby upheld. Resultantly, the writ petition is dismissed.