Judgment :- This writ petition is filed to forbear the Respondents from in any manner initiating any kind of coercive steps to recover the penalty amount of Rs. 10 00 000/- from the Writ Petitioner including invoking the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act until the final disposal of the review petition dated 28.8.2007 pending on the file of the 3rd respondent. 2. The Collector of Chennai has issued a letter in RC/2G/ 65722/07, dated 9.1.2008, which reads as follows:- " In the reference it has been requested to recover a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- towards penalty payable by you to Deputy Director, Enforcement Directorate, Chennai.6. I request you to send the settlement details to this office immediately, failing which action will be taken under the provisions of R.R. Act through the Tahsildar, Egmore-Nungambakkam Taluk." 3. This writ petition has been filed for a Mandamus forbearing the respondents from initiating any coercive steps to recover the penalty amount of Rs.10,00,000/- under the Provisions of Revenue Recovery Act until the Review Petition dated 28.8.2007 pending on the file of the third respondent/ Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange, New Delhi, is disposed of. 4. The relief sought for by the petitioner does not appear to be bonafide. The Collector or the Tahsildar is bound to act as per the directions/ request of the competent authority of the Enforcement Directorate. 5. It is open to the petitioner to challenge the orders of adjudication passed by the Enforcement Directorate authority or the Appellate Authority including interim relief of stay of recovery till such time the order is set aside as per law. The petitioner has no justification or valid reason to approach this Court to seek the relief as sought for in the present writ petition at this point of time. In any event, in the communication dated 9.1.2008, which is the cause of action for filing the writ petition, the Collector has requested the petitioner to send the details of payment to avoid further action. Hence the writ petition is premature. It is therefore, for the petitioner to show the authority the proof for payment of the amount as ordered by the Enforcement Directorate. The petitioner is also entitled to show if there is an order of Stay in its entirety or in part. 6. Hence the writ petition is premature. It is therefore, for the petitioner to show the authority the proof for payment of the amount as ordered by the Enforcement Directorate. The petitioner is also entitled to show if there is an order of Stay in its entirety or in part. 6. The Collector or the Revenue Authorities are bound to execute orders of the Court or the Tribunal as per Mandate of the relevant Act. The pendency of Review petition is not an order of stay per se. Further, the petitioner has not shown any material iregularity or error in the proceedings of the Collector or Tahsildar in order to stay the recovery of the penalty amount. The prayer in the writ petition is totally misconceived and consequently, the writ petition is dismissed. Consequently, M.P.No. 1 of 2008 is also dismissed. No costs.