ORDER 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties at some length. 2. The petitioner originally had been aggrieved with an order of attachment of his Bank Account issued vide notice under Section 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure since they had not produced the documents mentioned in the notice dated 26th November, 2012 issued under Section 30 of the Civil Procedure Code. 3. Basically, it appears from the submission of the parties that a proceeding for determination of the applicability of the Employees' Provident Funds & Misc. Provisions Act, 1952, is pending against the petitioner so far as it relates to international workers. In the said proceeding, some orders have been passed earlier to the impugned order, which have also been sought to be challenged by way of I.A. No. 1153 of 2013. 4. Perusal of the said order dated 24th September, 2012, which is sought to be challenged by way of instant I.A. indicates, however, that the proceedings are still pending and the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner had taken a prima facie view on the availability of the records of the Establishment that it has been engaging Chinese passport holders in its various type of work at its project site at Bokaro, while working for the Principal Employer M/s. Electrosteel Limited, Bokaro. By quoting the provisions of para 83 (i) (ff) of the E.P.F Scheme, 1952, it was observed that all the workers from China are without doubt international workers and the said establishment is liable to pay the statutory dues in respect of these workers. Based upon such prima facie view, notice under Section 30 of the Civil Procedure Code was issued upon the petitioner, which led to the issuance of the impugned order. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has preferred a review application against the said order which however was not entertained by observing that the proceedings under Section 7A of the EPF & MP Act, 1952 is still pending. The respondents in their, turn, have stated that the petitioner has rushed to this Court without co operating in the proceeding before the R.P.F.C., who is competent authority to decide the issue relating to applicability of the Employees' Provident Funds & Misc. Provisions Act, 1952 to the petitioner so far as it relates to international workers. 5. The respondents in their, turn, have stated that the petitioner has rushed to this Court without co operating in the proceeding before the R.P.F.C., who is competent authority to decide the issue relating to applicability of the Employees' Provident Funds & Misc. Provisions Act, 1952 to the petitioner so far as it relates to international workers. 5. In these circumstances, it is submitted that the petitioner should have produced not only the salary record, if any, but also any such objection, which they could have filed. However, they failed to do so despite time being given. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgments of the various High Courts, to submit that in a proceeding which are being pursued under Employees' Provident Funds & Misc. Provisions Act, 1952 at the interlocutory stage, the writ court should not interfere in the matter. This court is also of the same view. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Given the interlocutory nature of the orders impugned, this Court is not inclined to get into the merits of the controversy. The writ petition is however, being disposed of by directing the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner II (Compliance & Recovery), Regional Office, Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Bhagirathi Complex, Near Circuit House, Karamtoli, P.O. & P.S. Lalpur, Disgtrict Ranchi, respondent no. 3 to proceed and decide the pending proceeding initiated against the petitioner under Section 7A of the Act of 1952, after taking into account the preliminary issues raised by the petitioner in accordance with law within a reasonable period preferably within a period of 8 weeks from today. 7. Till then, the order for attachment of the Bank Account of the petitioner shall be kept in abeyance, if not given effect to already. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is being disposed of in the aforesaid term. Consequently, the I.A. No. 1153 of 2013 is also disposed of. 9. It is made clear that the observations made hereinabove shall in no way be treated to be a comment upon the merits of either parties. 10. The petitioner undoubtedly shall cooperate in the proceeding before the Respondent no.2. Petition disposed of.