IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 9645 of 2008 Between: Smt. Katamreddi Vasundhara, W/o T.Jayasankar Reddy C. Vengannapalli Village, Putlur mandal, Ananthapur district. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Joint Collector, Ananthapur. 2 Revenue Divisional Officer, Ananthapur 3 Tahsildar, Putlur Mandal, Ananthapur District. 4 smt. Arunavathi W/o Bhyravakonda Reddy C. Vengannapalli Village, Putlur Mandal, Anantapur District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.KAMLAKAR Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 3: AGP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES Counsel for Respondent No.4: MR. P.NARAHARI BABU The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.2 in not deciding the stay application filed in the appeal by the petitioner against proceedings, dated 16.04.2008 of respondent No.3 and adjourning the case indefinitely as illegal and void. The petitioner is a fair price shop dealer of C.Vengannapalli Village, Putlur Mandal, Ananthapur District, having been appointed as such on 21.07.2007. For the second time, by order, dated 16.04.2008, respondent No.3 suspended the petitioner’s authorization. The said order was assailed in appeal filed before respondent No.2 by the petitioner. The petitioner also claimed to have filed an application for stay. The endorsement contained on the copy of the appeal filed by the petitioner shows that the appeal was received on 23.04.2008. Complaining that her stay application is not disposed of, the petitioner filed the present writ petition five days after receipt of the appeal and the stay application by respondent No.2. Heard Sri P.Kamalakar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P.Narahari Babu, learned counsel for respondent No.4 – Caveator. Since the proceedings of respondent No.3 by which the petitioner’s authorization is suspended are the subject matter of the appeal filed by the petitioner before respondent No.2, I do not propose to examine its validity or otherwise. Since the very appeal filed by the petitioner is for questioning an interim order of suspension, the very purpose of its filing will be frustrated if the same is not disposed of with reasonable expedition. In this view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction to respondent No.2 to dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioner within a period of three (3) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. As a sequel to disposal of main petition, WPMP.No.12727 of 2008 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 29th APRIL, 2008 Note: issue c.c. in four (4) days. B/o kvni