IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 4967 of 2008 Between: Smt. K. Kalavathi W/o. Krishna Reddy R/o. Yerraguntla Village and Sirvel Mandal, Kurnool District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Joint Collector, Kurnool, Kurnool District. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Nandyala, Kurnool District. 3 The Tahasildar Sirvel Mandal, Kurnool District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.D.EDUKONDALU FOR MR.N.RAVI PRASAD Counsel for the Respondents: AGP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.1 in not passing any orders on the application of stay filed by the petitioner along with appeal against order, dated 16.02.2008 passed by respondent No.2. The petitioner was appointed as fair price shop dealer in the year 2004 for shop bearing No.20 of Yerraguntla Village, Sirvel Mandal, Kurnool District. On 31.01.2008, respondent No.2 issued a show cause notice to the petitioner to explain why her authorization shall not be cancelled. After considering her explanation, dated 11.02.2008, respondent No.2 passed order on 16.02.2008 whereby the petitioner’s authorization has been cancelled on certain irregularities in distribution of the essential commodities to the cardholders. The petitioner claims that she filed an appeal and an application for stay before respondent No.1. The only grievance of the petitioner is that respondent No.1 had so far not disposed of the said application. Heard Sri D.Edukondalu, learned counsel for the petitioner. The averments contained in the affidavit do not show the date, on which the petitioner filed the appeal along with the stay application. Even the appeal and stay petition do not contain the dates on which they were prepared, much less the dates, on which they were received by respondent No.1. Thus, there is no evidence to show that the petitioner filed an appeal and stay application and if so, on what date they were filed. Nevertheless, since the only grievance of the petitioner that respondent No.1 has not disposed of the said application, this writ petition is disposed of with the direction to respondent No.1 to consider and dispose of the application for stay said to have been filed by the petitioner along with the appeal purported to have been claimed against order, dated 16.02.2008 passed by respondent No.2, in accordance with law, after hearing the petitioner, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. As a sequel to disposal of main petition, WPMP.No.6443 of 2008 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 10th MARCH, 2008 kvni