IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH, AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY TUESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF APRIL, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY WRIT PETITION No.7050 of 2008 Between: Y.Sudhakar Reddy. … Petitioner AND Government of Andhra Pradesh, reptd., by the District Collector, Anantapur and two others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri S.V.Ramana for Sri O.Manohar Reddy. Counsel for the respondents: Asst.Govt. Pleader for Prohibition and Excise. This Court made the following: ORDER:- This Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus to declare notification dated 27-3-2008 issued by respondent No.1 as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner also sought for a consequential direction to stay the said notification pending disposal of the appeal filed by him before respondent No.2. The petitioner’s A.4 license was cancelled by respondent No.3 by order dated 11-3-2008. The petitioner claims to have filed an appeal against the said order before respondent No.2. A few days after the order of cancellation, on 27-3-2008 the District Collector, Ananthapur, issued notification calling for sealed tenders in respect of two shops, including the shop in Patha Kothacheruvu village, which was covered by the A-4 license held by the petitioner and cancelled by respondent No.3. Assailing the said notification, the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition. I have heard Sri S.V.Ramana, learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise. Under Section 63(1) of the A.P. Excise Act, 1968 if a person is aggrieved by an order passed by any officer, other than the Commissioner or Collector, he is entitled to file an appeal within forty-five days from the date of communication of such order before the Deputy Commissioner. In the instant case, admittedly, the period of forty-five days has not expired and the petitioner claimed to have filed an appeal. The object of providing a remedy of appeal is to ensure that the person aggrieved by the order passed by the original authority can espouse his cause in the appeal. Therefore, I am of the view that the action of the respondents in notifying the shop in question, almost immediately after passing of the order of cancellation, cannot be sustained. It is noticed from the record that the petitioner had not filed any application for stay before respondent No.2. In the above-mentioned facts, the Writ Petition is disposed of. The petitioner is permitted to file an application for stay in the appeal filed by him before respondent No.2 within a period of one week from today. Respondent No.2 is directed to dispose of the stay application within one week thereafter. Till the disposal of the stay application, the impugned notification, to the extent it relates to Patha Kothacheruvu village, shall not be given effect to. ---------------------------------- C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J 01-4-2008. MNR