Judgment :- The petitioner has filed the Writ Petition challenging the notice dated 12-4-1995 issued by the first respondent herein directing the petitioner to pay a penalty of Rs. 35, 000/- imposed by the third respondent. 2.It is the case of the petitioner that third respondent initiated proceedings against the petitioner under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act 1973 and imposed a penalty of Rs. 35, 000/- in his proceedings dated 11-11-1991. The petitioner has filed an appeal in Appeal No 562/91 on the file of the fifth respondent against the proceedings of the third respondent. The appeal is still pending. Along with the appeal the petitioner has filed an application to dispense with the penalty since it is the condition precedent to entertain the appeal filed under Section 52 of the said Act. The fifth respondent-appellate authority has not disposed of the application and also did not pass any orders in the petition filed by the petitioner to dispense with the penalty amount. In fact, the petitioner has received a notice dated 23-6-1994 from the fifth respondent that the appeal dated 21-12-1991 filed by the petitioner was received by the Registry of the Board on 26-12-1991 and the appeal has been numbered as Appeal No. 562/91. Thereafter the petitioner was not informed anything about the appeal. Now keeping the appeal as well as the petition, for dispensing with the penalty amount, pending for the past four years, the first respondent is now taking steps to recover the penalty amount by invoking Revenue Recovery Act. 3.The Petitioner's grievance is that when once the appeal has been filed against the order of adjudication and an application has also been filed to dispense with the deposit of the penalty which is a condition precedent for entertaining the appeal, it is the duty of the appellate authority to consider the application [to] dispense with the deposit, filed by the petitioner and pass orders disposing it of either way. In case if the petitioner is aggrieved by such disposal it is always open to her to approach the higher authority for appropriate relief. It is not proper on the part of the appellate authority to keep the appeal as well as the petition pending. When once the appeal has been filed, the petitioner's liability to pay the amount is also under challenge. It is not proper on the part of the appellate authority to keep the appeal as well as the petition pending. When once the appeal has been filed, the petitioner's liability to pay the amount is also under challenge. When the liability is questioned in such cases, the proceedings under Revenue Recovery Act cannot be initiated as held by the Division Bench of this Court reported in 1987 T.L.N.J. (230). However I do not propose to admit the Writ Petition and keep it pending. Instead, I think it is proper to direct the fifth respondent to dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioner, Appeal 562/91 within twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order in this Writ petition. Till such disposal of the appeal by the fifth respondent, the respondents 1 and 2 are hereby directed not to take any proceedings to recover the penalty from the petitioner pursuant to the adjudication order dated 11-11-1991 passed by the third Respondent.4.The Writ Petition is ordered accordingly.