Judgment K.S. Rathore, J.-The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a writ, order or direction to direct the respondents to grant stay of the disputed demand of Rs. 1,10,43,910 and not to treat the humble petitioner as the defaulter and not to recover the said amount or any part of it from the petitioner. The petitioner further seeks a writ order or direction to the effect that pending hearing of this petition this Court pass appropriate order for prohibiting/restraining the respondents and their successor-in-office from taking any further steps or proceedings to recover the disputed demand of Rs: 1,10,43,910. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner vide Annexure 6, dated February 7, 2002, represented before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Central), Jaipur, Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Range-2, Jaipur, and Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur, in the matter of the disputed demand of Rs. 1,10,43,910 plus interest outstanding against the petitioner for the block period April 1, 1989, to November 16, 1999. But no order whatsoever has been passed on the application for staying the disputed demand, dated February 7, 2002, by the authorities. 3. The petition has been moved before the Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Range, the Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Range, Jaipur,-Deputy Commissioner, Central Circle, Jaipur, and the Tax Recovery Officer (Central), Jaipur, and also served the notice for demand ofjustice dated February 20, 2002. Despite service of the legal notice upon the respondents, they have not passed any order whatsoever on the application dated February 7, 2002. 4. The matter comes upon the application under article 226(3) of the Constitution of India moved by the respondents. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner had already invoked the alternative remedy before the Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Range, Jaipur, and the Additional Commissioner has passed the order dated January 30, 2002, by which the Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Range, Jaipur, has directed to pay 25 per cent, of the outstanding demand by February 15, 2002, and 50 per cent, of outstanding demand by March 25, 2002, and in case of failure to pay the 25 per cent, of demand by February 15, coercive measures of recovery will be taken as per law. 5. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that the petitioner has not complied with the order dated January 30, 2002, passed by Additional Commissioner of Income-tax and failed to pay 25 per cent, of outstanding amount as directed by the Additional Commissioner. Since the petitioner has been granted the relief by the Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Range, Jaipur, and availed of the parallel remedy, therefore, the present petition is not maintainable and further prayed that the interim order granted by this Court on March 4, 2002, may be vacated. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the applications are pending before the Additional Commissioner of Income-tax and despite the repeated requests and notices for demand ofjustice, the respondents are not passing any order whatsoever, on the representation, therefore, this present petition has been filed and there is no such bar for invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 7. In support of his argument, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the Judgment rendered in the case of Maharana Shri Bhagwat Singhji of Mewar vs. ITAT [1997] 223 ITR 192 (Raj), wherein this Cou has held that the accountable person was entitled to an order of stay of collection of the entire estate duty during the pendency of appeal. The Tribunal was not justified in directing deposit of 25 per cent, of disputed duty. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that since the respondent has already passed an order dated January 30, 2002, as per the direction of this order, the petitioner is directed to make the payment of 25 per cent, of outstanding demand by February 15, 2002. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is not in a position to make the payment of 25 per cent, of outstanding demand as the petitioner’s financial condition is not good. 10. Since the order is already passed by the Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, the petitioner is supposed to comply with the direction and if the petitioner has any objection he may raise it before the competent authority and the respondents are free to realise the amount after giving opportunity of being heard from the petitioner. 10. Since the order is already passed by the Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, the petitioner is supposed to comply with the direction and if the petitioner has any objection he may raise it before the competent authority and the respondents are free to realise the amount after giving opportunity of being heard from the petitioner. During the course of the argument it is also given out by learned counsel for the petitioner that the matter is pending before the Settlement Commission but the Settlement Commission cannot proceed further until and unless the respondents furnish the report and without submission of such report the Settlement Commission cannot proceed further. 11. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the material available on record and after careful examination of the Judgment cited before me, I am of the view that the respondents be directed to dispose of the application dated February 7, 2002, as early as possible but not later than one month in view of the Judgment referred to before me and strictly in accordance with the provisions of law. Till the disposal of the application dated February 7, 2002 (Annexure 6), the interim order shall continue. The respondents are further directed to submit the report before the Settlement Commission as early as possible. 12. In view of the aforesaid observations the writ petition stands disposed of