IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 14329 of 2010 Between: Koppula Saritha ..... PETITIONER AND The Joint Collector & Addl. District Magistrate, Guntur, Guntur District and others .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 14329 OF 2010 O R D E R : The 4th respondent herein is the authorised dealer of the fair price shop of Thimmapuram village, Edlapadu Mandal, Guntur District. Her authorisation was suspended pending enquiry by order dated 14.07.2005. Aggrieved by the same, the 4th respondent preferred an appeal before the 1st respondent. The said appeal was disposed of by order dated 22.04.2006 with a direction to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Narasaraopet to conduct a regular enquiry. Having conducted such an enquiry, the 2nd respondent by order dated 13.04.2010 restored the authorisation of the 4th respondent imposing a fine of Rs.3,000/-. The writ petitioner, who claims to have been appointed as a temporary dealer in the vacancy caused on account of the suspension of the 4th respondent’s authorisation, states that challenging the order dated 13.04.2010 she preferred an appeal before the 1st respondent. Having entertained the said appeal, the 1st respondent by order dated 07.05.2010 rejected the petitioner’s request for grant of stay. Aggrieved by the said order, the present writ petition is filed. The learned counsel for the petitioner while placing reliance upon a decision of this Court in D.Narayana Reddy v. Joint Collector, Ananthapur and another[1] vehemently contended that the restoration of the authorisation of the 4th respondent is ex facie illegal. Having regard to the admitted fact that the statutory appeal against the order dated 13.04.2010 is pending before the 1st respondent, it is neither proper nor necessary for this Court to express any opinion on merits. As noticed above, what is challenged in this writ petition is only the order under which the 1st respondent had rejected the petitioner’s request for grant of stay pending the appeal. On a careful consideration of the material available on record, I do not find any justifiable reason to hold that the discretion exercised by the 1st respondent in declining to grant stay suffered from any arbitrariness or unreasonableness. Hence, interference by this Court in exercise of the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not warranted. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed, leaving it open to the 1st respondent to dispose of the appeal pending on his file following due process of law. No costs. ​ ____________ Date: 23.06.2010 G. ROHINI, J Ivd [1] 2008(3) ALT 768