The Hon'ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.6530 of 2009 O r d e r : At the interlocutory stage, the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties. This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside Proceedings, dated 20-03-2009, of respondent No.2, whereby the authorization of respondent No.4 in respect of Fair Price Shop No.119 of Kurnool City, has been restored in his favour. Heard Sri K.Krishna Kishore, learned Counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Sri K.V.Raghuveer, learned Counsel for respondent No.4. Respondent No.4 was a permanent Fair Price Shop dealer of the above-mentioned shop and his authorization in respect thereof was cancelled on 05-01-2008 by respondent No.2. He questioned the said order in appeal before respondent No.1. In the meantime, the petitioner was appointed as temporary dealer in his place. In appeal, the order of cancellation, dated 05-01-2008, passed against respondent No.4 was set aside by respondent No.1 vide Order, dated 28-02-2008, and the matter was remitted to respondent No.2 for fresh consideration. By order, dated 20-03-2009, respondent No.2 restored the authorization in favour of respondent No.4 by imposing a penalty of Rs.26,971/-, for variation of stock of essential commodities with the coupons of rice and kerosene oil for the month of October, 2007, and a fine of Rs.5,000/- treating the mistake committed by him as his first mistake. This Order was questioned by the petitioner in appeal before respondent No.1. The grievance of the petitioner is that pending appeal, respondent No.1 has not suspended the said Order of respondent No.2. At the hearing, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order passed by respondent No.2, restoring the authorization of respondent No.4, is contrary to law and without jurisdiction. The learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and the learned Counsel for respondent No.4 submitted that on the facts of the case, respondent No.2 exercised her jurisdiction vested under Clause 17 of the A.P.State Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2001. In my considered view, it is not necessary for this Court to adjudicate on the legality or validity of the impugned Order at this stage because that is the subject matter of appeal before respondent No.1. Admittedly, respondent No.4 is continuing as Fair Price Shop dealer of the above- mentioned shop, in view of the impugned order, from March, 2009. Therefore, it is neither proper nor appropriate to dislodge respondent No.4 at this stage when the petitioner’s appeal is pending before respondent No.1. In this view of the matter, the Writ Petition is disposed of with the direction to respondent No.1 to dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioner, after giving an opportunity to him and respondent No.4, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.8536 of 2009 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ___________________________ (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) 31st July, 2009 lur