IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA WRIT PETITION NO : 3706 of 2008 Between: Yandava Appa Rao S/o Chitteyya R/o Momanapalli Village, Hiramandalam Mandal, Srikakulam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Tahsildar, Hiramandalam Mandal, Srikakulam District 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Palakonda, Srikakulam District. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 any Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring the proceedings Rc. No. 447/07 dt 23-10-2007 issued by the 1st respondent is illegal, arbitrary, unjustify, unsustainable and contrary to G.O.Ms. No. 47 dt 6-10-2007 and set a side the same and consequently direct the respondents to continue the petitioner as Fair Price shop Dealer of Komanapalli Village, Hiramandalam Mandal, Srikakulam District and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner :MR.A.RAMA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA WRIT PETITION NO : 3706 of 2008 ORDER: 1. Heard Sri A.Rama Rao, the learned counsel representing the writ petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. 2. The writ petition is filed for a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring the proceedings bearing Rc.No.447/07, dated 23.10.2007 issued by the 1st respondent as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to G.O.Ms. No. 47, dated 06.10.2007 and set a side the same and consequently direct the respondents to continue the petitioner as the dealer of the fair price shop at Komanapalli Village, Hiramandalam Mandal, Srikakulam District. 3. Several facts had been narrated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. The principal contention, which had been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the Tahsildar-1st respondent has no authority or jurisdiction to make the impugned order. However, it is stated that an appeal had already been preferred to the 2nd respondent. 4. In view of the same, let the petitioner raise all these grounds inclusive of the question of jurisdiction before the appellate authority-2nd respondent and let the 2nd respondent dispose of the appeal within a period of six weeks. Till then, status quo obtaining as on today shall be maintained. 5.The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. _________ 22.02.2008 JSU To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{TRT} THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA WRIT PETITION NO : 3706 of 2008 Date: 22.02.2008