THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.17961 of 2011 Date: 09.09.2011 Between: Smt. Mullamuri Venkata Ratnam and others. … Petitioner and The District Collector (CS), Prakasam District, Ongole and others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.17961 of 2011 ORDER : Heard Ms. K. Hemalatha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, as well as the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for the respondents. Having regard to the limited relief sought for by the learned counsel at the hearing to direct the 1st respondent to dispose of the appeal said to have been filed by the petitioners within a time frame, with the consent of both the counsel the writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage. 2. The petitioners claim to be cardholders attached to the Fair Price Shop No.22 of Venkupalem Village, Ponnaluru Mandal, Kandukur Division, Prakasam District, of which the 4th respondent is the authorised dealer. They have filed this writ petition complaining that the appeal filed by them before the 1st respondent-District Collector (Civil Supplies), Prakasam District, against an order passed by the 2nd respondent – Sub- Collector/Revenue Divisional Officer, Kandukur, Prakasam District, in proceedings No.RCF/2167/2010, dated 2.6.2011 has not been disposed of despite considerable time has elapsed. 3. The brief facts are that the 4th respondent holds authorisation to run Fair Price Shop No.22 of Venkupalem village. On the basis of an inspection report dated 22.10.2010 of the 3rd respondent-Enforcement Deputy Tahsildar, Singarayakonda, Kandukur Division, Prakasam District, the 2nd respondent initiated proceedings under the provisions of A.P. State Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008. Considering the matter and the explanation offered by the 4th respondent, the 2nd respondent passed order dated 2.6.2011 imposing a fine of Rs.3,000/- against the 4th respondent. The petitioners challenged the said order by filing an appeal before the 1st respondent contending that the allegations are serious in nature and that the 2nd respondent, having found the 4th respondent guilty, ought to have imposed higher punishment. It is the case of the petitioners that even though the appeal was filed on 20.6.2011, the 1st respondent has not taken any steps to consider the said appeal, nor has he considered the application for stay filed along with the said appeal. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition for the aforesaid relief. 4. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the 1st respondent be directed to dispose of the appeal within a time frame. 5. Indisputably, the petitioners have filed appeal before the 1st respondent on 20.6.2011. Even though considerable time has elapsed, the 1st respondent has not passed any orders on the said appeal. In matters of this nature, the Statutory authorities are expected to pass appropriate orders expeditiously within a time frame. 6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the short relief sought for during the course of hearing, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioners against the order dated 2.6.2011 of the 2nd respondent and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law after due notice to the 4th respondent, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs. ________________________ JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI 09.09.2011. Msr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.17961 of 2011 09.09.2011 (Msr)