IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 17627 of 2008 Between: M/s. Sri Narsamamba Lace Industries, rep. by its Partner, A. Upendernath, Seetarampuram, Narsapur Mandal, West Godavari District, A.P. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, (Enforcement) Rajahmundry, O/o. The Employees Provident Fund Organization. 2 The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II, Rajahmundry, West Godavari District. 3 The Employee's Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal at New Delhi Ministry of Labour, Govt. of India, 14, Bhikajikama Place, New Delhi-110066. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the inaction of the respondent No.2 in not passing orders on the stay petition as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, null and void and consequently and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.N.S.BHASKARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.R.N.REDDY (SC FOR EMPLOY'S PF ORG.) The Court made the following : ORDER This writ petition has been filed by M/s. Sri Narsamamba Lace Industries with a prayer to issue writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the Employee’s Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal at New Delhi, Ministry of Labour, Government of India-3rd respondent in not passing orders on the stay application as arbitrary and illegal. When the writ petition came up for admission, learned Standing Counsel for Employees’ Provident Fund Organization, received notice on behalf of the respondents. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner filed an appeal assailing the order passed by the 2nd respondent and also moved stay application and no orders have been passed either in the appeal or in the stay application by the 3rd respondent. Indisputably 3rd respondent is a statutory Tribunal constituted under the provisions of Section 7-D of Employees’ Provident Funds & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. Since the petitioner has filed an appeal along with stay application, he has to move application before the appellate authority to expedite the hearing of the stay application. Invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, in the given facts and circumstances of the case, is misconceived. In that view of the matter, 3rd respondent is directed to consider the stay application as expeditiously as possible. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. __________ 13-08-2008 rkk