JUDGMENT : S.N. Prasad, J. The petitioner being aggrieved with part of the order dated 10.12.2003 (Annexure-13) so far it relates to interest under Section 7-Q of the Employees' Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provision Act, 1952 and the demand noticed dtd. 20th April, 2004 is before this Court by way of this writ petition. 2. The brief facts of the case of the petitioner - College is that a letter dtd. 8.7.2002 has been received from the Employees' Provident Fund Organization regarding applicability of the Employees' Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provision Act, 1952 (herein after referred to as 'the Act, 1952'), upon receipt of the letter, the principal of the College submitted required information and on the basis of the records the EPF authority has issued EPF code number vide its communication dtd. 30.12.2002 making the Act applicable w.e.f. from 1.9.1989 and accordingly directed to pay the statutory dues, failure in making payment a notice u/s. 7-A of the Act, 1952 dtd. 15.7.2003 was issued for determination of the provident fund money due from the petitioner, in terms thereof the reply has been submitted showing the helplessness in depositing the amount due to financial position of the College but without appreciating this aspect of the matter the competent authority has concluded the proceeding and passed order U/s. 7-A of the Act directing the petitioner to deposit Rs.5,90,620/- towards Provident fund dues and further directed to deposit Rs.2,06,840/- towards interest U/s.7-Q of the Act, 1952. The petitioner upon receipt of the order passed u/s. 7-A of the Act has paid the amount assessed but disputed the amount as has been assessed U/s 7-Q of the Act, 1952 on the ground that the provision provided U/s. 7-Q provides that the employer shall be liable to simple interest @ 12% per annum or at such higher rate as specified in the scheme on any amount due from him under this Act from the date on which the amount was so due till the date of its actual payment. According to the petitioner the provision U/s. 7-Q does not state that the interest has to be imposed from the effective date and has stated that the interest would be charged on any amount due from him under the Act from the date from which the amount has become due till the date of its actual payment. According to the petitioner the provision U/s. 7-Q does not state that the interest has to be imposed from the effective date and has stated that the interest would be charged on any amount due from him under the Act from the date from which the amount has become due till the date of its actual payment. Since the petitioner-College was brought under the purview of the Provident Fund Scheme w.e.f. 30.12.2002, i.e. the date of allotment of Code which was effected from 1.9.1999, hence the petitioner is liable to pay interest only w.e.f. 30.12.2002 and not from the earlier date and on this ground this writ petition has been filed. 3. The opposite parties have put their appearance and filed detailed counter affidavit stating inter alia therein that the petitioner-College has been brought under the purview of the Act w.e.f. 1.9.1989 by virtue of order passed on 30.12.2002 and as such the authorities have passed the order U/s.7-A of the Act, 1952 assessing the amount due w.e.f. 1.9.1989 which amount has been deposited by the petitioner and as such the petitioner is also liable to pay interest from the due date i.e. w.e.f. 1.9.1989 as per the specific provision made u/s. 7-Q of the Act which says that the employer shall liable to pay simple interest on any amount due from him under this Act from the date on which the amount has become so due. According to the opposite parties the amount has been found to be due w.e.f. 1.9.1989 and as such the interest is also liable to be paid by the petitioner-College w.e.f. 1.9.1989. It has been contended that this writ petition is not maintainable on the ground of availability of alternative remedy of appeal as provided under the statute u/s.7-1 of the Act, 1952. 4. Heard the learned Counsels for the parties and perused the documents on record. The petitioner is not aggrieved with the order passed u/s. 7-A of the Act, but, however, he is aggrieved with the part of the order passed u/s.7-Q regarding the amount of interest to be leviable w.e.f. which date as to whether it is from 1.9.1989 or from 30.12.2002. According to the petitioner-College it is liable to pay interest w.e.f. 30.12.2002 while according to the opposite parties the petitioner is liable to pay interest w.e.f. 1.9.1989, i.e. the date from which the amount has become due. 5. According to the petitioner-College it is liable to pay interest w.e.f. 30.12.2002 while according to the opposite parties the petitioner is liable to pay interest w.e.f. 1.9.1989, i.e. the date from which the amount has become due. 5. Before going into the merit of the case of the petitioner, it would be necessary to adjudicate the issue regarding availability of the alternative remedy of appeal as provided under Section 7-1 of the Act, 1952, a ground which has been taken by the learned Counsel representing the opposite parties. 6. There is no denial about the fact that there is provision of appeal as provided under Section 7-1 of the Act, 1952 which is being reproduced herein below: "17-1 - Appeals to Tribunal - (1) Any person aggrieved by a notification issued by the Central Government, or an order passed by the Central Government or any authority, under the proviso to sub-section (3), or sub-section (4) of Section 1 or Section 3, or sub-section (1) of Section 7-A, or Section 78 or Section 7C, or Section 14B, may prefer an appeal to a Tribunal against such notification or order. (2) Every appeal under sub-section (1) shall be filed in such form and manner, within such time and be accompanied by such fees, as may be prescribed." 7. This writ petition has been filed on 24.06.2004, notice has been issued on 22.07.2004 with an interim order which is being reproduced herein below: Misc. Case No. 6674 of 2004, order No. 5 dtd.22.7.2004. Notice as above. Accept one set of process fee. On payment of Rs.15,000/- (Fifteen thousand) within four weeks from today, no coercive action shall be taken for realization of the amount demanded under Annexure-13 until further orders. Urgent certified copy be granted, on proper application." 8. There is no denial in the settled proposition of law that if there is any alternative remedy of appeal available under the Statute, the High Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should not interfere since the same will amount to snatching of power of the appellate authority but however, there is no straight jacket formula rather it is self-imposed restrictions. 9. 9. This writ petition is pending since 24.06.2004 and as such about 12 years the matter is pending before this Court and if after lapse of about 12 years, this writ petition will be held to be not maintainable on the ground of availability of alternative remedy of appeal that too after notice being issued and in interim order has been passed, it would not be proper for this Court to do at this stage. In this regard reference may be made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hirday Narain vs. Income-tax Officer, Bareilly reported in AIR 1971 SC 33 wherein their Lordships has been pleased to hold which is being quoted herein below: "we are unable to hold that because of revision application could have been moved for an order correcting the order of the Income-tax Officer under Section 35, but was not moved, the High Court would be justified in dismissing as not maintainable the partition, which was entertained and was heard on merit." Further in the case of Durga Enterprises (P) Ltd. And another Vs. Principal Secretary, Government of U.P. and others reported in (2004) 13 SCC 665 wherein their Lordships has been pleased to hold that the writ petition was pending for a long period of thirteen years and summarily dismissed on the ground that there is remedy of civil suit by the High Court and should not have dismissed without deciding the writ petition on merit. 10. This Court has passed an interim order to the effect that not to take any coercive steps and as such ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as referred hereinabove is applicable with the facts and circumstances of this case, hence after the matter being pending for last 12 years with an interim order it would not be proper for this Court in summarily rejecting the writ petition on the ground of availability of alternative remedy otherwise question of limitation will arise and also in order to avoid further litigation, it would be appropriate to decide the matter on merit. In view of this, instead of seeking alternative remedy of appeal before the Tribunal, the writ petition is being decided on merit. In view of this, instead of seeking alternative remedy of appeal before the Tribunal, the writ petition is being decided on merit. So far as the merit of the case is concerned, the sole question raised by the petitioner is regarding assessing the amount of interest u/s. 7-Q. According to the petitioner the interest ought to have been imposed w.e.f. 30.12.2002, the date when the petitioner-College has been brought under the purview of the Act although w.e.f. 1.9.1989 in order to appreciate this argument it is relevant to refer the provision made u/s.7-Q which is being quoted herein below: "7-Q. Interest payable by the employer. - The employer shall be liable to pay simple interest at the rate of twelve per cent per annum or at such higher rate as may be specified in the Scheme on any amount due from him under this Act from the date on which the amount has become so due till the date of its actual payment: Provided that higher rate of interest specified in the Scheme shall not exceed the lending rate of interest charged by any scheduled bank." From perusal of the provision as contained in Sec. 7-Q it is evident that Sec. 7-Q was inserted after amendment in the Act w.e.f. 1st July, 1997 and from bare reading of the provision as contained therein the relevant date for consideration of imposing the interest u/s. 7-Q is not the date when the amount was so due and payable but the date on which the amount was assessed as leviable on an employer. In the present case, the amount so assessed on 10.12.2003 and as such the Regional Provident Fund was still empowered to impose interest upon the petitioner-College w.e.f. the actual date from which the amount so due. From perusal of the order passed u/s.7-A dtd. 10.12.2003 it is evident that the amount found due is with effect from 1.9.1989 and taking into consideration this aspect of the matter the authorities have assessed the interest @ 12% per annum on the amount assessed from the due date to 10.12.2003. In view thereof there is no infirmity in calculating the interest rather it is strictly in consonance with the provision as contained u/s. 7-Q of the Act, 1952. In view of the foregoing reasons there is no merit in this writ petition. Accordingly, the case is dismissed. Interim order stands vacated. Petition dismissed.