IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.6335 of 2008 Between: Smt. G. Pushpavathi, W/o. Hanumantha Reddy, R/o. Mudigallu Village, Kalyandurg Mandal, Ananthapur District. ...PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, Ananthapur. 2 The Joint Collector, Ananthapur. 3 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Dharmavaram, Ananthapur District. 4 The Tahsildar, Kalyandurg, Ananthapur District. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.N.RANGA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.6335 of 2008 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus to set aside proceedings dated 17.11.2007 and 01.03.2008 of respondent Nos.3 and 2 respectively. The authorization of the petitioner in respect of Mudigallu Village Fair Price Shop, Kalyandurg Mandal, Ananthapur District was cancelled by respondent No.3 by his proceedings dated 17.11.2007 on the finding that three charges framed against her were proved. The petitioner filed appeal before respondent No.2, who, by his order dated 01.03.2008, dismissed the same confirming the order of respondent No.3. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed Revision Petition before respondent No.1. An application for stay along with the said Revision Petition was also claimed to have been filed by the petitioner. The grievance of the petitioner is that while respondent Nos.3 and 2 passed orders against her without there being any material proving the charges against the petitioner, respondent No.1 has not so far disposed of her application filed for stay of orders impugned in the Revision Petition. Inasmuch as respondent No.1 is yet to dispose of the application filed by the petitioner, I am not inclined to entertain the Writ Petition and adjudicate the same on merits. Instead, I feel ends of justice would be met if respondent No.1 is directed to dispose of the application for stay said to have been filed by the petitioner in the Revision Petition, within a period of two {2} weeks from today. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. _______________________ (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) 26th March 2008 Note: CC by three days B/O RRB