ORDER Deepak Verma, J. 1. This order shall govern disposal of W.P. No. 909/1997 (Kabra Drugs Ltd. v. The Commissioner), W.P. No. 910/1997 (Indra Marshall Oil Engine v. The Commissioner), as common questions are involved in all these petitions. 2. It has been disputed before me that, against the order of adjudication passed by Addl. Commissioner, Central Excise & Customs, all the petitioners have preferred appeals before Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Bhopal under Section 35 of the Central Excise Act. Along with the said appeals, they have also preferred an application under Section 35(f) of the Act, for grant of stay. 3. Grievance of the petitioner, by filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is that, even though, appeals and stay applications have been filed in all the aforesaid matters but their stay application has not been considered, by the Appellate Authority, as the Presiding Officer has not yet taken over the charge. Submission is that, for want of Authority, their application for grant of stay under Section 35(f) are not being considered, yet respondents are making hectic steps to recover the amount of penalty and duty as adjudicated by them. 4. Shri Neema, appearing for respondents on advance copy submitted that, now regular appointment on the post of Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Bhopal has been made and the Officer appointed on the said post is likely to take charge shortly. 5. However, the fact remains that, the petitioners appeals are not being taken up for hearing. Their application for stay are also not taken up for consideration. In this view of the matter, the respondents were not justified in issuing notices to the petitioners to deposit the amount of duty and penalty. 6. Shri Ashutosh Upadhyaya, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in all the cases has placed strong reliance on a judgment reported in 1995 (80) E.L.T. 505 (M.P.) (Gajra Beval Gears Ltd. v. Govt. of India), to contend that in identical facts and circumstances, the Division Bench of this Court was pleased to stay the recovery proceedings until the petitioner's application was considered by the Appellate Authority. 7. Both the counsels also do not dispute that in view of the judgment pronounced by this Court in Gajra Beval Gears Ltd. (supra), this Court has passed several orders, with a direction to the respondents and these petitions be also disposed of with a similar direction. 7. Both the counsels also do not dispute that in view of the judgment pronounced by this Court in Gajra Beval Gears Ltd. (supra), this Court has passed several orders, with a direction to the respondents and these petitions be also disposed of with a similar direction. Consequently and in the result, this petition and the connected petitions are disposed of with the following directions :- (i) The respondents shall not take any coercive steps against the petitioners for recovery of the amount as assessed by the Addl. Commissioner, Central Excise, which is subject matter of challenge in appeal pending before Commissioner of Appeals; (ii) That this order of stay shall continue until the petitioners application filed under Section 35(f) of the Central Excise Act are considered and are not disposed of on merits by the Appellate Authority. 8. It is expected of the Appellate Authority to consider the stay applications of the petitioners as soon as it may be possible and expeditiously as he may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case. With these observations, this petition and the connected petitions stand finally disposed of but, with no order as to costs. 9. A copy of this order be kept in W.P. No. 909/1997 and W.P. No. 910/1997. C.C. in two days.