THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.23079 of 2011 ORDER: 1 Heard Sri G.L. Narasimha Rao the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. 2 In view of the short relief sought for during the course of hearing, this Writ Petition is disposed of at the admission stage. 3 The petitioner has assailed the orders of the 1st respondent – Joint Collector & Additional District Magistrate (CS), Guntur District in Appeal Case No.20/2011-S7 dated 19.05.2011 declining to stay the operation of the orders of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Guntur, the 2nd respondent herein, in proceedings Rc.No.756/11-B dated 09.03.2011 whereunder the authorisation of the petitioner as Fair Price Shop Dealer has been suspended pending enquiry. 4 The 2nd respondent has initiated action against the petitioner under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh State Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008 (for short ‘Control Order’) alleging that the petitioner failed to maintain working hours and abusing the cardholders. It is also alleged that the petitioner is distributing the essential commodities at higher rates with less weighment, therefore, contravened Clause 3(2) of Annexure to the Control Order and Clause 5 of the Control Order. 5 Having regard to the nature of irregularities, the 2nd respondent suspended the authorisation of the petitioner as Fair Price Shop Dealer pending enquiry by order dated 09.03.2011. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal along with a stay petition before the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent considered the matter and declined to grant stay. Against the said order, the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition. 6 The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the irregularities alleged against the petitioner are minor in nature, which do not warrant suspension of the authorisation. The learned counsel further submits that the 1st respondent refused to grant stay without having regard to the gravity of the irregularities. The learned counsel further submits that the appeal preferred by the petitioner was directed to be posted on 02.07.2011 but the same has been adjourned without any valid reasons. 7 I am not inclined to go into the merits of the case. A perusal of the impugned order shows that considering the nature of the irregularities alleged, the 1st respondent thought it fit not to grant stay of the operation of the order of the 2nd respondent. The 1st respondent has considered that the petitioner is facing the allegation that he has distributed the commodities with less weighment and also at higher rates. Granting an interim order being discretionary it cannot be said that the order passed by the 1st respondent declining to grant stay is neither arbitrary nor illegal. It is true that the appeal was posted for hearing on 02.07.2011. But it appears that the 1st respondent has not considered the appeal and postponed the hearing. Considerable time has elapsed ever since the 2nd respondent suspended the authorisation of the petitioner under order dated 09.03.2011. In matters of this nature, the statutory authorities are expected to dispose of the matters expeditiously in order to avoid hardship to the parties. 8 In the circumstances, while confirming the impugned order, the 1st respondent is directed to dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioner against the orders of the 2nd respondent in proceedings Rc.No.756/11-B dated 09.03.2011 as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 9 The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. ________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J. 17.08.2011 Kvsn