IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 4611 of 2008 Between: Peddireddi Ramana Reddy S/o.Venkat Reddy R/o.Somalaregada(V)& Post Duttaluru(M) Nellore Dist ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Joint Collector, Nellore Dist 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kavali, Nellore Dist 3 The Tahsildar, Dattuluru(M), Dattuluru, Nellore Dist .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MRS.A.BALA BHARATHI Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare proceedings, dated 18.02.2008, issued by respondent No.2 by which he confirmed order, dated 28.09.2007 issued by respondent No.3 as illegal and violative of the principles of natural justice. Heard Smt. A.Bala Bharathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. The petitioner’s fair price shop authorization for Somalaregada Village of Nellore District was suspended by respondent No.3 on 30.01.2008. Writ Petition No.21126 of 2007 filed by the petitioner questioning the same was disposed of by this Court on 06.10.2007 by permitting the petitioner to file an appeal and directing respondent No.2 to dispose of the same. The petitioner thereafter, filed appeal before respondent No.2, who by his order, dated 18.02.2008 confirmed the order of suspension pending enquiry. He also directed that the order of suspension granted by respondent No.3 will be in force for 90 days or till completion of enquiry, whichever is earlier. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal along with a stay application before respondent No.1. On the ground that the said appeal and the stay application have not been disposed of by respondent No.1, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. A perusal of a copy of the appeal filed by the petitioner shows that the same is dated 28.02.2008 and it does not contain proof of the date, on which the same was filed. This clearly shows that the petitioner has not allowed respondent No.1 any time whatsoever to pass orders either on the stay application or in the appeal and rushed to this Court by way of this writ petition. I am, therefore, of the view that the petitioner is not justified in filing this writ petition at this juncture, since respondent No.1, who is vested with many statutory and administrative functions, is required to have some reasonable time to consider and pass orders on the appeal and stay application filed by the petitioner. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed. C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 4th MARCH, 2008 kvni