THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.13245 of 2009 Date:23.06.2011 Between: M/s.Sri Lakshmi Kala Mandir ..... Petitioner AND ESI Corporation and another .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri P.Rambhoopal Reddy Counsel for Respondent No.1: Sri P.Srinivasulu, for Sri B.G.Ravinder Reddy, standing counsel for ESI The Court made the following: ORDER: At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition itself is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner suffered an order under Section 45(c) of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (for short ‘the Act’). In order to recover an amount of Rs.7,64,549/- as shown to be due up to 31.10.2003, proceedings were initiated by the respondents. By the impugned notice dated 02.07.2009, respondent No.2 has informed the petitioner that if he does not pay Rs.9,14,827/-, the attached property will be put to public auction. This notice was interdicted by this Court in the present writ petition subject to payment of certain amounts. At the hearing, Sri P.Rambhoopal Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that against the order determining the petitioner’s liability under Section 45(c) of the Act, his client has already availed the remedy of a statutory appeal before the appellate Tribunal and that the same is pending. The learned counsel further submitted that so far his client has paid a sum of Rs.8,50,826/- towards its liability. Sri P.Srinivasulu, the learned counsel representing Sri B.G.Ravinder Reddy, learned standing counsel for respondent No.1 Corporation, has not disputed the above submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has so far paid Rs.8,50,826/-. In my opinion, when the statutory appeal is pending before the appellate Tribunal, it is not appropriate for this Court to adjudicate on the legality or otherwise of the action of the respondents. Since substantial amount towards the demanded dues has already been paid, the petitioner is permitted to pay the balance dues in three equal monthly instalments commencing from 1st August, 2011, which shall be without prejudice to its contentions that may be raised before the appellate Tribunal in the pending appeal. The respondents shall not take coercive action as indicated in the impugned notice till the end of October, 2011. Conversely, if payments are not made as undertaken by the petitioner, it shall be open to the respondents to proceed for recovery against the petitioner. Subject to the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.13245 of 2009 and W.V.M.P.No.3668 of 2009 are disposed of as infructuous. ________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 23rd June, 2011 GHN