IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 15723 of 2008 Between: M.Leela Kumari W/o.Satyanarayana R/o.Ramakrishnapuram village Chirala Mandal, Prakasam District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Secretary Panchayatraj Wing, Secretariat, Hyderabad 2 The District Collector, Prakasam District, Prakasham Bhavan, Ongole 3 The District Panchayat Officer, Prakasam District Prakasam Bhavan,Ongole 4 The Divisional Panchayat Officer, Prakasham Bhavan Ongole, Prakasam District 5 Sri Lakshman Rao, The Extension Officer (P.R.& R.D.) Mandal Parishad,Chirala, Prakasam District .....RESPONDENTS 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 of mandamus directing 1st respondent to receive and number the appeal of the petitioner and further direct the 1st respondent to pass speaking order on the appeal of the petitioner by giving an opportunity of hearing and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.G.L.NAGESWAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV. The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 15723 of 2008 O R D E R: The specific case of the petitioner is that as against the order passed by the 2nd respondent, dated 23-06-2008, though she preferred an appeal before the 1st respondent on 18-07-2008, the same has not been entertained and consequently no orders could be passed on her application for stay. It is pleaded that in the meanwhile the impugned order is sought to be implemented and the petitioner is being compelled to handover the charge to the Upasarpanch. Hence, this writ petition. Having regard to the material placed before this Court and having heard the learned counsel for both the parties, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the 1st respondent to consider the application for stay filed by the petitioner in the appeal preferred by her against the order of the 2nd respondent and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within222222 a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Meanwhile, the order of the 2nd respondent dated 23-06-2008 shall not be given effect to for a period of four weeks from today. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI,J Date: 22-07-2008 Note: Issue operative portion by wire B/o KLP