IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 24820 of 2008 Between: Hari Hari Gowd S/o. P. Veeranna Gowd (Shop NO. II) Donekal Village, Vidapanakal Mandal, Anantapur District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Joint Collector, Ananapur, Anantapur District. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer Anantapur , Anantapur District. 3 The Tahsildar, Vidapanakal Mandal, Anantapur District. 4 Sri P. Hussaini S/o. Dasanna Anantapur District. .....RESPONDENTS 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 appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings in R.C.No. K3/ATP/1894/2008 dt. 5-11-2008 of the 1st Respondent as illegal, arbitrary in violation of principles of natural justice and in violation of Art 14 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent No.3 to allow the petitioner to distribute the Essential Commodities to the card holders in the interest of justice and to pass such other order or orders Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.S.D.GOWD Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No: 24820 of 2008 O R D E R: Petitioner is the authorized dealer of the fair price shop No.II of Donekal Village, Vidapanakal Mandal, Ananthapur District. His authorization was suspended pending enquiry on the ground of alleged irregularities in distributing the essential commodities. However, after conducting due enquiry, the second respondent- Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer, by order dated 13-10-2008 restored the authorization of the petitioner with a ﬁne of Rs.500/- and a warning to be more careful in future. Challenging the said order, the fourth respondent herein preferred an appeal before the ﬁrst respondent. Having entertained the said appeal, the ﬁrst respondent by order dated 05-11-2008 granted interim stay of the operation of the 2nd respondent’s order dated 13-10- 2008. The said order passed by the ﬁrst respondent is under challenge in this writ petition. It is vehemently contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order of the Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer dated 13-10-2008 does not warrant interference on any ground whatsoever and therefore the 1st respondent is not justified in granting stay. Since the impugned order dated 5.11.2008 is only an interim order and the statutory appeal is pending before the ﬁrst respondent, it is neither necessary nor proper for this Court to express any opinion on merits. At any rate, I do not ﬁnd any justiﬁable reason to interfere with the discretion exercised by the ﬁrst respondent in declining to grant stay pending the Statutory Appeal. Instead, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the ﬁrst respondent to dispose of the main appeal itself as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order following due process of law. Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI,J Date: 14-11-2008 Note: Issue C.C. in one week. B/o KLP