IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No : 5987 of 2008 Between: Smt. Nagu bai W/o Krishnaji R/o Kulkacherla Village & mandal, Ranga Reddy District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Joint Collector & Addl. Dist. Magistrate, R.R. District. 2 The special Grade Deputy Collector & RDO., Chevella Division, Ranga Reddy District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri Venkata Mayur for Sri B. Vijaysen Reddy Counsel for the Respondents : AGP for Civil Supplies The Court made the following O R D E R: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare the inaction of respondent No.1 in entertaining the stay application filed by the petitioner along with the appeal filed on 15.03.2008 questioning order, dated 15.02.2008 passed by respondent No.2 in Proceedings No.E/2227/2007 as illegal. Heard Sri Venkata Mayur on behalf of Sri B.Vijaysen Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. The petitioner’s fair price shop authorization was cancelled by respondent No.2 vide his proceedings, dated 15.02.2008. Assailing the said order, the petitioner filed appeal before respondent No.1 and along with the said appeal, she claimed that she filed a stay application. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order passed by respondent No.2 is wholly unsustainable and the same was passed for extraneous considerations, inasmuch as he cancelled fair price shop authorizations in a series of cases by passing stereotyped orders. Inasmuch as the appeal filed by the petitioner is pending, I do not feel it appropriate to consider the submissions of the learned counsel on merits. The petitioner is given liberty to raise all the contentions pertaining to the legality and validity of the order passed by respondent No.2 before respondent No.1 and the latter shall, after giving an opportunity to the petitioner, pass a reasoned order and communicate the same to her. In this view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of. Respondent No.1 is directed to dispose of the appeal along with the stay application within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Since I find that the request of the learned counsel that the respondents may not make appointment of fair price shop dealer on regular basis in respect of the shop in question pending the appeal, is reasonable, the respondents are directed not to fill up the vacancy till the disposal of the appeal by respondent No.1. As a sequel to disposal of main petition, WPMP.No.7788 of 2008 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. (C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) 19th March 2008 ksld