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 : 19127 of 2008 Between: V.Veeramma W/o. Bayyapu Reddy Khajipet Mandal, Kadapa District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The joint Collector, Kadapa, Kadapa District. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kadapa, Kadapa District. .....RESPONDENS 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 a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents particularly the 1st respondent in rejecting the stay application of the petitioner in his Ref. No.I(3)/3392/008 dated 13.08.2008 in the appeal ﬁled by the petitioner against the cancellation order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 09-06-2008 without assigning any reasons and without examining the material available on record besides the grounds raised by the petitioner and also equities and balance of convenience as illegal, unjust, arbitrary and unilateral and against the provisions of A.P. Public Distribution system Control Order 2001 and consequently set aside the order passed by the 1st respondent in his Ref. No.I(3)/3392/2008 dated 13-08-2008 with further direction to continue the petitioner as fair price shop dealer of Chemullapalli Village, Khajipet Mandal, Kadapa District and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.L.J.VEERA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is ﬁled challenging the order dated 13.08.2008 passed by the ﬁrst respondent rejecting the application ﬁled by the petitioner for grant of stay pending disposal of the appeal preferred against the order of the second respondent dated 9.6.2008 cancelling the authorization of the petitioner in respect of the fair price shop of Chemullapalli Village. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record. Since admittedly the order impugned is only an interim order and even prior to the order of cancellation, the petitioner’s authorization was suspended pending enquiry, though I am not inclined to interfere with the order impugned, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the ﬁrst respondent to dispose of the main appeal itself following the due process of law as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of this order. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. -------------- 04.09.2008 Issue C.C. in 3 days B/o kvsn ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{KSRANI}