THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.8365 of 2011 Dated 30.03.2011 Between: S.Obulamma …Petitioner And The Revenue Divisional Officer, Ananthapur and another …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri N.Ranga Reddy Counsel for respondents: Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the inaction of respondent No.1 in passing the orders on the stay application filed in the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dated 15.02.2011 of respondent No.2 as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner sought for setting aside order dated 15.02.2011 of respondent No.2 and a direction to supply essential commodities to the petitioner for distribution. The petitioner is the fair price shop dealer of Shop No.27 of Dharmavaram Town, Ananthapur District. By his order dated 15.02.2011, respondent No.2 suspended the petitioner’s fair price shop authorization on certain allegations. The petitioner pleaded that she has filed an appeal before respondent No.1 on 28.02.2011. Her grievance is that respondent No.1 has not passed any order granting stay against the order of respondent No.2. She further pleaded that under the Andhra Pradesh State Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008 (for short ‘Control Order’), respondent No.2 is vested with the limited power of suspending the fair price shop authorizations only for a period of 90 days and that he failed to limit the impugned order in terms of time. Since the appeal filed by the petitioner is pending before respondent No.1, I am not inclined to render conclusive findings on the pleas raised by the petitioner. However, under second proviso to Sub-Clause (4) of Clause 5 of the Control Order, respondent No.2 is conferred with the limited power of suspending the authorization for a period of 90 days only. As respondent No.2 failed to keep this proviso in mind and arrogated to himself the powers of the appointing-cum-disciplinary authority, prima facie the impugned order dated 15.02.2011 of respondent No.2 cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 15.02.2011 of respondent No.2 is suspended pending appeal filed by the petitioner before respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 is directed to dispose of the appeal within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Subject to the above directions, the Writ Petition is allowed. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.10379 of 2011 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 30th March, 2011 GHN