THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.29552 of 2010 DT.26.11.2010 Between: D.Narasimhulu … Petitioner And The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Secretary, Consumer Affairs, Food & Civil Supplies Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad & others. … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri J.Prabhakar Counsel for respondents: AGP for Civil Supplies The Court made the following ORDER: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to set aside notification, dated 16.11.2010, issued by respondent No.3, whereby he has notified the vacancy of a newly created fair price shop following bifurcation. I have heard Sri J.Prabhakar, learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. The petitioner is fair price shop dealer of Gundreddypalli Village (Peddavada Gram Panchayat), Komarole Mandal, Prakasam District. By order, dated 26.03.2009, respondent No.3 has bifurcated the said shop by creating a new shop. After filing W.P.No.4309 of 2010 and followed by its disposal, the petitioner filed an appeal before respondent No.5. According to the petitioner, the said appeal was filed on 20.03.2010. It is his further plea that along with the appeal, he has filed an application for stay and that respondent No.5 has called for remarks from respondent Nos.2 and 3. The immediate cause for the petitioner to file the present writ petition is the impugned notification, dated 16.11.2010, whereby respondent No.3 has called for applications for filling up the vacancy of the newly created shop. The petitioner has averred that when his appeal and stay application are pending, on which, no order has been passed by respondent No.5, respondent No.3 is not justified in seeking to fill up the vacancy. I find force in the plea raised by the petitioner, which is reinforced by the learned counsel for the petitioner at the hearing. As the petitioner’s stay application filed in the appeal is stated to be pending, it is incumbent upon respondent No.5 to pass appropriate order thereon. As no such order is stated to be passed and appeal itself is pending for nearly eight months, it is appropriate that respondent No.5 disposes of the appeal expeditiously. In order to protect the interests of the petitioner, it is necessary in the interests of justice that respondent No.3 shall not finalise the selections in pursuance of the impugned notification, till the appeal is disposed of. Accordingly, respondent No.5 is directed to dispose of the appeal within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and till such disposal, respondent No.3 shall not finalise the selections. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.37647 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) Date: 26.11.2010. Note: Issue CC in one week. (b/o) VGB