JUDGMENT : Raja Vijayaraghavan V., J. 1. The instant Writ Petition is preferred seeking following reliefs: "(a) A writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order quashing and setting aside Exhibits P5, P6 and P8. (b) A writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order directing the 4th respondent to take up and disposed of ATA No. 1445 (7) 2015" 2. The petitioner is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and is running a multi-speciality Hospital. Alleging default in payment of statutory dues, proceedings were initiated under the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. An order dated 16.11.2012 demanding a sum of Rs. 45,53,491 as damages and Rs. 12,53,229 as interest for the period from October, 1995 to January, 2007 was issued by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner. This was challenged and by judgment dated 21.11.2012, the assessing authority was ordered to recalculate the amount in terms of the directions issued. Though an appeal was preferred, the same was not interfered with. Later, a revised assessment order was' issued by the respondents, a copy of which is produced as Ext. P2. Challenging the said order, the petitioner herein preferred statutory appeal before the Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi. Later, the case was made over to the Bangalore Bench of the Appellate Tribunal, in terms of the orders issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. While disposing of the case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had observed that no coercive steps shall be taken. A copy of the said order is produced as Ext. P3. However, the appeal preferred by the petitioner herein as early as in the year 2015 was not taken up by the Tribunal. Later, the matter which was pending before the Tribunal at Bangalore was transferred to the 4th respondent-Central Government Industrial Tribunal where the appeal and the stay petition is pending. According to the petitioner, ignoring the pendency of the Appeal and Stay petition, the respondents are initiating steps to realise the amount. 3. Sri. P. Ramakrishnan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner had preferred the statutory appeal in time and due to infrastructural and institutional limitations, neither the appeal nor the stay petition has been taken up and considered till date. He would point out that in view of Exts. P2 and P3, no coercive proceedings can be initiated. P. Ramakrishnan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner had preferred the statutory appeal in time and due to infrastructural and institutional limitations, neither the appeal nor the stay petition has been taken up and considered till date. He would point out that in view of Exts. P2 and P3, no coercive proceedings can be initiated. Though the petitioner has made earnest efforts to get the appeal posted, it has been of no avail. 4. Heard Sri. Abraham P. Meachinkara, the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents. 5. Having considered the submissions advanced by both sides and after having perused- the materials, I find that the fact that an appeal has been preferred by the petitioner challenging the order of assessment and the same is pending before the 4th respondent is undisputed. A copy of the appeal memorandum has been produced as Ext. P9. The petitioner cannot be faulted for the delay in consideration of the appeal. In view of the above, there is no justification on the part of the respondents to initiate coercive proceedings for realization of the amount pending consideration of the appeal. 6. In the result, this Writ Petition is disposed of directing the fourth respondent to take up Exhibit-P9 appeal and stay petition, expeditiously, and pass appropriate orders on its merits. Till such time, coercive proceedings initiated by the respondents against the petitioner for realizing the amount covered under Exts. P5, P6 and P8 shall be kept in abeyance.