IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 22462 of 2008 Between: M. Venkata Ramaiah S/o. Yangappa F.P. Shop Dealer (Shop No.13), Nallacherlopalli Village, Mudigubba Mandal, Ananthapur Dist. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Joint Collector & Addl. Dist. Magistrate Ananthapur. 2 The Revenue Divl. Officer Penukonda, Ananthapur Dist. 3 The Tahsildar Mudigubba Mandal, Ananthapur Dist. 4 The Mandal Revenue Inspector Mudigubba Mandal, Ananthapur Dist. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the order of the 1st respondent in Rc.No.K4/PKD/1728/2008 dated 08-10-2008 as illegal and void, and consequently direct the respondent to continue the petitioner as the Fair Price Shop Dealer of FP Shop No.13 of Nallacherlopalli Village, Mudigubba Mandal, Ananthapur Dist. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.KAMLAKAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI W.P.No.22462 of 2008 ORAL ORDER The petitioner herein is the authorized dealer of the fair price shop No.13 of Nallacherlopalli village, Mudigubba Mandal, Anantapur District. By order dated.16-08-2008, the 3rd respondent-the Tahasildar, Mudigubba Mandal, suspended the petitioner’s authorization alleging that when the fair price shop was inspected by the Vigilance and Enforcement Officer, Anantapur along with the Mandal Revenue Inspector on 16-08-2008 grave irregularities were noticed and accordingly 2.28 quintals of PDS rice was seized and a case was registered under Section.6-A of Essential Commodities Act,1955. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner ﬁled W.P.No.20257 of 2008. Having regard to the fact that an alternative remedy of appeal is available before the Joint Collector under Clause.20 of A.P. State Public Distribution System (Control) Order,2008, this Court while declining to interfere with the impugned order, disposed of the writ petition suspending the impugned order dated.16-08-2008 for a period of two weeks so as to enable the petitioner to approach the appellate authority and obtain appropriate orders. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the 1st respondent-Joint Collector, Anantapur along with an application for stay. Though the appeal was entertained, the 1st respondent by order dated. 08-10-2008 rejected the application for stay observing that there were no substantive grounds. The said order passed by the 1st respondent dated.08-10-2008 is under challenge in this writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the order of suspension of the authorization dated.16-08-2008 is wholly arbitrary and illegal since the suspension of authorization pending ﬁnalization of the proceedings under Sec.6-A of Essential Commodities Act is not permissible under law. In support of the said submission the learned counsel for the petitioner while placing reliance upon the decisions in Shaik Raheema Vs. Joint Collector, Nellore and another ([1]), B.Satyanarayana Vs. The Joint Collector(C.S.) R.R. District and others([2]), and P.Hanumantha Rao Vs. The Chief Rationing Oﬃcer, Twin Cities, Hyderabad another([3]) as well as the unreported decision of this Court in W.P.No.18415 of 2008 dated.26-08-2008 vehemently contended that having regard to the well settled legal position, the 1st respondent committed a grave error in declining to grant stay pending the appeal. It is also contended that the impugned order is bad since the same is not supported by any reasons. All the above contentions raised by the petitioner with regard to legality and validity of the suspension of the petitioner’s authorization require consideration in the appeal pending before the 1st respondent. As a matter of fact the 1st respondent while rejecting the petitioner’s application for stay directed the main appeal itself to be heard on 10-10-2008. Hence It is neither necessary nor proper for this court to express any opinion on merits at this stage. Sofar as the grant of interim order pending appeal is concerned, what is required is the satisfaction of a prima facie case. The 1st respondent having considered the material available before him opined that there were no substantive grounds to grant the stay. While disposing of an interlocutory application, the quasi judicial authority cannot be expected to assign elaborate reasons and therefore the impugned order can not be held to bad for want of reasons. Since the appeal before the 1st respondent itself is against an order of suspension pending enquiry under the provisions of the A.P. State Public Distribution System(Control)Order,2008, if this Court enters into the merits of the case and expresses any opinion it would amount to deciding the statutory appeal pending before the 1st respondent. Hence in my considered opinion the interference by this Court at this stage is not warranted on any ground what-so- ever. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the 1st respondent to dispose of the appeal pending on his ﬁle on or before 31-10-2008 without fail. No costs. _______________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt.18 .10.2008 *T SNR [1] 2008(1) ALD 768 [2] 1994(1) ALT 168 [3] 1993(3) ALT 442