IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 19168 of 2008 Between: N. Adinarayana, S/o. Peddapullanna, FP Shop Dealer, Shop No. 35, Sangala Village, Bathalapalli Mandal, Anantapur District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Dharmavaram, Anantapur District. 2 The Tahsildar, Bathalapalli Mandal, Anantapur District. 3 Yalamakuri Sanjivareddy, S/o. Venkata Reddy, R/o 1-72, Sangala, Sangala, Bathalapalli Mandal, Anantapur District. .....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 any writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in not granting stay in the appeal No. Rc.No. F/DMB/1681/2008, dt. 23-8-2008 as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the principles of natural justice and consequently suspend the orders passed by the 2nd respondent in Rc.No. B./162/2008, dt. 16-8-2008 and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.K.SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following : ORDER: 1 Petitioner’s authorization as a Fair Price Shop Dealer of Sangala Village, Bathalapalli Mandal, Ananthapur District was suspended, pending enquiry, vide order of the second respondent dated 16.8.2008. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the ﬁrst respondent. Though the appeal was entertained, by order dated 23.08.2008, the ﬁrst respondent rejected the application ﬁled by the petitioner for grant of stay. The said order dated 23.08.2008 is challenged in this Writ Petition. 2 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for the respondents. 3 Admittedly, the order impugned is an interim order pending statutory appeal. As a matter of fact, the impugned order shows that the main appeal was directed to be posted on 01.09.2008. Hence it is neither proper nor necessary for this Court to go into the merits of the case. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the main appeal was not taken up on 01.09.2008. Having regard to the fact that the appeal before the ﬁrst respondent arises out of an order of suspension pending enquiry, I am of the opinion that the appeal on the ﬁle of the ﬁrst respondent requires expeditious disposal. 4 Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the ﬁrst respondent to dispose of the appeal pending on his ﬁle against the order of the second respondent dated 16.08.2008 as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of this order. No order as to costs. --------------- 04.09.2008 Kvsn ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{RLD}