HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.21688 of 2010 Date : 31.08.2010 Between : Smt. Palleti Shiva Laxmi. …..Petitioner And The Joint Collector (Civil Supplies), Prakasam District & others. …..Respondents HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.21688 of 2010 ORDER : Heard learned counsel for petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents. This writ petition is filed, seeking for a writ of Mandamus, declaring the inaction on the part of 1st respondent-Joint Collector (Civil Supplies), in passing orders on the stay petition filed by the petitioner on 24.08.2010, along with the appeal filed by her against the orders, dated 18.08.2010, passed by the 2nd respondent- Revenue Divisional Officer, Kandukur in RCF.1084/2009, as illegal and arbitrary, and consequently direct respondents 2 and 3 to supply the essential commodities to the petitioner’s fair price shop. Petitioner is a fair price shop dealer for Shop No.5 of Ulavapadu village and Mandal in Prakasam District. On certain irregularities alleged to have been committed by the petitioner, an inquiry was conducted by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kandukur, and by an order, dated 18.08.2010, passed in RCF.1084/2009, he has ordered for cancellation of authorization granted to the petitioner and further ordered to recover an amount of Rs.16,739.75 ps., from the petitioner. Against the said order, petitioner has preferred an appeal before the 1st respondent-Joint Collector, along with an application for interim order, on 24.08.2010. In this writ petition, it is the grievance of the petitioner that the appellate authority is not considering the application filed by her for interim order. It is further submitted that as much as she was allowed to run the shop during the pendency of the proceedings, and as the appeal is pending, she is entitled for supply of essential commodities. I have perused the order, dated 18th August 2010, passed by the 2nd respondent in RCF.1084/2009. In view of the pendency of appeal, it is not desirable to record any finding on the plea of the petitioner in the explanation offered by her with regard to the charges framed against her. As much as the appeal filed by the petitioner is pending, though it is submitted that she is entitled for supplies during the pendency of appeal, as much as the primary authority has considered the explanation filed by the petitioner and recorded adverse findings, this Court is of the view that she is not entitled for supply of essential commodities till appropriate orders are passed by the appellate authority. In view of pendency of appeal preferred by the petitioner, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition, directing the 1st respondent- Joint Collector (Civil Supplies), to dispose of the appeal itself filed by the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be a further direction to the respondents not to recover any amount from the petitioner, as ordered to be recovered in the order, dated 18th August 2010, issued in Proceedings No.RCF.1084/2009, with a further direction to the respondents not to make any permanent appointment in the place of the petitioner, during the pendency of appeal. It is made clear that it is open for the respondents to make temporary arrangements for supply of essential commodities. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 31st August 2010 Note: Furnish C.C. in three days. (b/o) ajr