JUDGMENT : SHAJI P. CHALY, J. Respondents 1 to 3 in W.P.(C) No. 14581 of 2019 have preferred this appeal challenging the judgment of a learned single Judge dated 23rd February, 2021, whereby the writ petition was disposed of directing the appellants to release the Fixed Deposit amount retained by the 1st appellant Bank to the first respondent/writ petitioner on his demand. It was also made clear that the appellants would be at liberty to insist for an indemnity bond executed by the writ petitioner as a condition for releasing the Fixed Deposit. 2. Brief material facts for the disposal of the appeal are as follows: The first respondent/writ petitioner was a Manager of the first appellant Bank. He took voluntary retirement in accordance with the voluntary retirement scheme floated by the Bank and he was relieved from service on 09.07.2018. According to the writ petitioner, the Provident Fund and the Pension Fund Department of the Punjab National Bank issued a Pension Payment Order as per Ext. P1. 3. According to the writ petitioner, when he approached the first appellant Bank for releasing the pension amount, the Circle Head of the Bank-second appellant, as per his communication dated 06.07.2018, directed the writ petitioner that an amount of Rs. 3,96,601/-shall have to be retained in the Bank in the form of Fixed Deposit with a lien marked in favour of the Bank, in connection with the execution of an attachment order issued by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Regional Office, Kozhikode under Section 8F of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 ('EPF Act, 1952' for short) directing the first appellant to recover a total amount of Rs.3,96,601/-, being the arrears due to be paid by the third respondent in the appeal namely one P. Aboo, Proprietor, PG Medical Trust Hospital, Nilambur, towards contribution of Employees Provident Fund, evident from Exhibit P2 . 4. On the basis of Ext. P2 order, the sanctioned pensionary benefits was disbursed only on condition of the writ petitioner agreeing to deposit an amount of Rs.3,96,601/-as Fixed Deposit with a lien marked in favour of the first appellant Bank so as to retain it as a security for the Bank in the event of making payment to the 3rd respondent, for having deducted the amount from the cash credit account maintained by the 3rd respondent with the Bank. 5. 5. The case projected by the writ petitioner was that the 3rd respondent had been sanctioned a working capital limit of Rs.25,00,000/-by the first appellant Bank for the purpose of utilising the same for the day-to-day business of the hospital. 6. It was while so, when the writ petitioner was working as the Manager in the first appellant Bank, the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner issued two notices dated 17.08.2017 under Section 8F of the EPF Act, 1952 directing to recover and pay the aforesaid amount, evident from Exts.P3 and P4 notices. 7. Therefore, the case projected by the writ petitioner is that he had no other option than to recover the amount as per the directions contained in Exts.P3 and P4, exercising the power conferred on the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner under Section 8F of the EPF Act, 1952. The sum and substance of the contentions put forth is that there was no negligence or omission on the part of the writ petitioner in recovering the amount as per the directions issued by the statutory authority under the EPF Act, 1952 and therefore, the Bank is not entitled to retain the amount in the guise of an apprehended future action from the part of the third respondent, marking lien against the Fixed Deposit. 8. Whatever that be, in the embroiled circumstances, the writ petitioner has addressed Ext. P5 communication dated 05.04.2018 to the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Kozhikode to refund the amount; but, on receipt of Ext. P5, the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner sent a communication dated 07.09.2018 to the Chief Manager of the first appellant Bank, with copy to the writ petitioner, conveying that the amount recovered from the account of the third respondent and paid to the EPF is perfectly legal and valid, and the writ petitioner cannot be held responsible for any loss, or to refund the amount to the bank, and therefore, it was requested to release the FD amount to the writ petitioner, evident from Ext. P6. 9. On receipt of Ext. P6, petitioner addressed the Circle Head, Punjab National Bank, Circle Office, Kozhikode-second appellant as per Ext. P7 communication to release the Fixed Deposit amount, to which the Bank has issued Ext. P6. 9. On receipt of Ext. P6, petitioner addressed the Circle Head, Punjab National Bank, Circle Office, Kozhikode-second appellant as per Ext. P7 communication to release the Fixed Deposit amount, to which the Bank has issued Ext. P8 reply dated 11.11.2018 informing that the action of the writ petitioner in recovering the amount from the account of the 3rd respondent was not legally correct and hence, the writ petitioner has to settle the issue amicably by and between the Employees Provident Fund and the party respondents- respondents 2 and 3 respectively. 10. The further case of the writ petitioner is that in compliance with the said letter of the Bank, steps were taken by him to sort out the issue in coordination with the Provident Fund Office. However, the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner was of the opinion that the action of recovery by the writ petitioner was in accordance with law and therefore, there is no requirement for refund of the amount to the account of the third respondent. 11. Anyhow, the Bank has issued Ext. P8 communication dated 01.11.2018 stating that the 3rd respondent had filed a complaint in regard to the recovery of the amount by the writ petitioner from the cash credit account. Be that as it may, the Bank refused to release the Fixed Deposit amount under the circumstances detailed above, and it was in the said backdrop that the writ petition was filed. 12. The Bank has filed a counter affidavit in the writ petition justifying its action. Along with the counter affidavit, the appellant Bank has produced Ext. R1(a) complaint dated 29.05.2018 filed by the third respondent before the Bank. It is further contended that the Fixed Deposit amount is retained by the Bank as a lien on the basis of Ext. R1(b) letter submitted by the writ petitioner and therefore, the writ petitioner is not entitled to turn around and proceed against the Bank in order to release the Fixed Deposit amount. 13. It is further contended that the Fixed Deposit amount is retained by the Bank as a lien on the basis of Ext. R1(b) letter submitted by the writ petitioner and therefore, the writ petitioner is not entitled to turn around and proceed against the Bank in order to release the Fixed Deposit amount. 13. That apart, the case of the Bank is that the debited amount is not standing in the credit of the third respondent, but a cash credit account which was sanctioned with a working capital limit of Rs.25,00,000/-towards the proprietary concern and therefore, it is clear that the writ petitioner wrongly debited the cash credit account, and the action taken by the Bank is not in accordance with the directions of the attachment order provided under Section 8F of the EPF Act, 1952. 14. The sum and substance of the contention advanced by the Bank is that against the conduct of the writ petitioner, the Bank could have proceeded against the writ petitioner but for his agreement for retaining the amount in the Fixed Deposit, with a lien marked to the Bank, and therefore, the Bank is justifying its action. 15. The 4th respondent i.e., the Assistant Provident Commissioner, has filed a statement in the writ petition justifying the stand adopted by the writ petitioner, in view of the peremptory stipulations contained under Section 8F of the EPF Act, 1952. According to the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, the nature of bank account maintained by the third respondent is immaterial in order to execute an order issued under Section 8F of the EPF Act, 1952 and therefore, the action taken by the writ petitioner is in accordance with law and no action can be initiated by the Bank against the writ petitioner. Though the 3rd respondent has entered appearance through an advocate, no counter affidavit was filed, nor opposed the relief sought for by the writ petitioner. 16. In the above background facts, the learned single Judge, after assimilating the factual and legal circumstances, arrived at the expressive finding that the Bank cannot find fault with the writ petitioner for obeying the statutory order and he has only deducted the amount from the account of the 3rd respondent and remitted the same to the Provident Fund Authorities in contemplation of the statutory requirement and as demanded by the Provident Fund Commissioner, Regional Office, Kozhikode. It is, thus, challenging the legality and correctness of the judgment of the learned single Judge, the appeal is preferred by the Bank and its officials. 17. The paramount contention advanced by the Bank is that the learned single Judge ought not to have entertained the writ petition as the facts involved requires oral as well as documentary evidence; that since the writ petitioner agreed for retaining the Fixed Deposit as a lien marked to the Bank, the writ petitioner is estopped from seeking release of the Fixed Deposit amount; and that the only remedy available to the writ petitioner was to approach the civil court and establish his case. 18. That apart, it is also contended that the writ petitioner was holding a responsible position in the Bank and it was expected of him to have acquainted with the difference between the savings bank account and the cash credit account and therefore, the learned single Judge was not right in sympathizing with the writ petitioner holding that the writ petitioner may not have been aware of the delicate difference in law between a savings bank account and cash credit account. Therefore, it is contended that the judgment of the learned single Judge suffers from the vice of jurisdictional error, liable to be interfered with by this Court in the appeal. 19. We have heard, Sri. Benny P. Thomas for the appellants, Sri. Elvin Peter P. J for the first respondent/writ petitioner and Dr. Abraham P. Meachinkara for the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, and perused the pleadings and materials on record. 20. The sole question that emerges for consideration is whether any manner of interference is required to the judgment of the learned single Judge. The detailed facts discussed above would make it clear that the writ petitioner has recovered the amount from the cash credit account of the third respondent on the basis of a notice issued by the Provident Fund Authority under Section 8F of the EPF Act, 1952. Even though the Bank has raised a contention that the writ petitioner was not entitled to effect recovery against a cash credit account, the Bank has not pointed out any provision of law or Bank's circular restraining it from executing a direction issued by a competent statutory authority to effect recovery against the statutory due from the third respondent. 21. Even though the Bank has raised a contention that the writ petitioner was not entitled to effect recovery against a cash credit account, the Bank has not pointed out any provision of law or Bank's circular restraining it from executing a direction issued by a competent statutory authority to effect recovery against the statutory due from the third respondent. 21. That apart, the Bank is apprehending adverse action against it on the basis of Ext. R1(a) letter dated 29.05.2018 issued by the third respondent. True, in Ext. R1(a), the third respondent has threatened the Bank that unless the Bank re-credits the amount recovered to his cash credit account, he would proceed against the Bank. But, fact remains, the said letter is dated 29.05.2018 and there is no case for the Bank that the third respondent has proceeded against the Bank through any process known to law. Which thus means, even after a lapse of a period of 3 years, the Bank has no case that the third respondent has secured any order against the Bank with respect to the recovery effected by the first writ petitioner. 22. We are of the considered opinion that the Bank cannot detain the Fixed Deposit marking lien without any time limit and forever only on the mere apprehension that the 3rd respondent may initiate some legal action for recovery of the amount debited from the cash credit account of the 3rd respondent. In short, we have no doubt in holding that the cause of action that is put forth by the Bank is only an apprehension on a presumption that the third respondent may proceed against the Bank in future, and the Bank, therefore, is not entitled to forcibly retain the Fixed Deposit. 23. We are also of the view that the Bank cannot adjudicate any claim against the writ petitioner by its own volition. Merely because the Bank apprehends an action from the part of the third respondent, the Bank is not entitled to insist that the Fixed Deposit should remain as a lien in favour of the Bank. That apart, if the Bank was of the view that the writ petitioner has violated any guidelines or law of the Bank, the Bank ought to have proceeded against the writ petitioner by taking disciplinary action. But, the Bank has not initiated any such action against the writ petitioner. That apart, if the Bank was of the view that the writ petitioner has violated any guidelines or law of the Bank, the Bank ought to have proceeded against the writ petitioner by taking disciplinary action. But, the Bank has not initiated any such action against the writ petitioner. Merely because the writ petitioner has agreed to retain the amount to protect the interest of the Bank way back in 2018, that will not detain him from initiating action against the Bank for release of the Fixed Deposit amount. 24. In our view, there is no valid cause of action for the Bank, apart from the incompetency of the Bank to adjudicate on a future cause of action and retain the Fixed Deposit amount marking a lien to the Bank. Moreover, now 3 years have elapsed since the letter issued by the third respondent to the Bank threatening action against the issue in question, but no action was initiated, and therefore the writ petitioner is not expected to remain silent forever, without raising a claim for the amount due under the Fixed Deposit. Article 300A of the Constitution of India makes it clear that no person can be deprived of his property without authority of law. In our view, the action of the Bank is totally strange and unjustifiable 25. That apart, going by the contentions raised by the appellants, we could gather that the Bank is retaining the amount under the Fixed Deposit thinking that since the Bank has not initiated any disciplinary action against the writ petitioner, it is entitled to adjust the amount in the Fixed Deposit in the event of any future apprehended loss suffered by the Bank, which can never be termed a competent action recognisable under law. We are also of the definite and considered opinion that the Bank cannot be permitted to adjudicate in advance a future loss that may be suffered by the Bank, and such an action is an impermissible one under law, apart from the fact that the Bank has no authority under law and competent, to adjudicate any damages likely to suffer or suffered by its own volition; and if done, it can only be viewed as an action against the law of the land, since only a civil court or any other competent court is vested with powers to do so. 26. 26. Even though the Bank has raised a contention that the remedy of the writ petitioner is to file a civil suit, we are unable to agree with the same, since there is no dispute with respect to the amount retained by the Bank and there are no intricate issues to be resolved on the basis of the other factual and legal circumstances requiring a writ court not to entertain a writ petition. 27. Moreover, the 'lien' is defined under Section 171 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, and it clearly specifies that Bankers, factors, wharfingers, attorneys of a High Court and policy-brokers may, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, retain as a security for a general balance of account, any goods bailed to them; but no other persons have a right to retain, as a security for such balance, goods bailed to them, unless there is an express contract to that effect. On an analysis of the said provision, it is clear that the action of the Bank apprehending future action against it cannot be sustained under law also. 28. We also find that the learned single Judge has made sufficient safety precautions in favour of the appellant Bank by ordering to secure an indemnity bond executed by the writ petitioner as a condition for releasing the Fixed Deposit. 29. Taking into account the said legal and factual circumstances, we are of the view that the appellants have not made out any case of jurisdictional error or other legal infirmities justifying our interference in an intra court appeal filed Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958. We make it clear that in any case, the amount due under the Fixed Deposit along with interest shall be released to the writ petitioner on production of the Fixed Deposit receipts, at the earliest and at any rate, within 3 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Needless to say, writ appeal fails and accordingly, it is dismissed.