IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 16610 of 2008 Between: Smt. Boddepalli Bhagya Lakshmi W/o. Boddepalli Ravi Kumar R/o. 2-117/1, Narasapuram, H/o. Polaki Village and Mandal, Srikakualm District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Joint Collector, Srikakulam, 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Srikakulam, 3 Kum. Korada Vimala D/o. Sri Rama Rao Narasapuram H/o.Polaki Village and Mandal, Srikakulam 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 writ of Certiorari or any order or direction by calling for the records pertaining to order dt. 27-6-2008 issued by the 1st respondent in SR (A) No. 10/2008 and consequently quash the same as being arbitrary illegal and contrary to principles of natural justice pending disposal of the appeal and to pass such other orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.UMASANKAR LOKANADHAM Counsel for the Respondents 1 and 2: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES Counsel for the Respondent No.3: None The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 16610 of 2008 ORDER: Learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents at the stage of admission, fairly concedes the position that the impugned order is unsustainable and perverse as it records no reasons for rejecting the application of the petitioner-appellant for grant of stay of the order of appointment of the 3rd respondent as a fair price shop dealer in respect of Shop No.2 of Polaki Mandal. On a perusal of the impugned order, it is clear that the order is perverse as no reasons whatsoever are recorded as to why the first respondent considered it appropriate to exercise discretion to reject the stay petition of the petitioner-appellant. The 1st respondent is a quasi judicial authority and cannot issue firmans. He is required to record reasons for any decision. As the impugned order is bereft of any reasons and perverse, it is accordingly quashed. The 1st respondent shall now consider the stay application of the petitioner and pass a reasoned order expeditiously, and preferably, within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No costs. ____________________ GODA RAGHURAM,J DATE: 31st July, 2008 Note: Furnish c.c. urgently B/o pnb