THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY W.P.No.2165 of 2011 Date : 4-2-2011 Between : Valluru Prabhakara Rao .. Petitioner And The Joint Collector, Srikakulam District, Srikakulam and others .. Respondents Counsel for petitioner : Sri Mavidi Rama Rao Counsel for respondents : A.G.P. for Civil Supplies The Court made the following : ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a mandamus to set-aside order dated 22-12-2010 of respondent No.1 dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner against order dated 12-11- 2010 of respondent No.2. The petitioner is a fair price shop dealer of Bodduru-II, Santhakaviti Mandal, Srikaklulam District. His shop was inspected on 4-11-2009 on the basis of which authorization was suspended by respondent No.2 on 18-11-2009. The petitioner has filed W.P.No.25603/2009 assailing the said order of suspension. This court by order dated 25-11-2009 suspended the said order. The said Writ Petition was disposed of by this court by order dated 25-11-2009 with liberty to respondent No.2 to initiate appropriate action if he is so advised. Thereafter, after calling for explanation, respondent No.2 passed order dated 10-5-2010 cancelling the petitioner’s authorization. The said order was challenged by the petitioner in W.P.No.11510/2010. This court by order dated 19-5-2010 suspended the said order of cancellation. While the above said Writ Petition is pending, another inspection was made on 2-11-2010 by Mandal Revenue Inspector during which excess stock of 2.30 Quintals of P.D.S. rice, 4.00 Quintals of M.D.M. rice and 5.08 Quintals of sugar was allegedly found. The stock was seized and fresh proceedings were initiated by suspending the petitioner’s authorization by order dated 12-11-2010. The petitioner filed an appeal before respondent No.1. As no interim order was passed on the petitioner’s stay application, he has filed W.P.No.29565/2010. This court by order dated 26-11-2010 disposed of the said Writ Petition, directing respondent No.1 to dispose of the application for stay within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the order. Purporting to comply with the said order, respondent No.1 passed the impugned order. A perusal of the impugned order shows that having noted the contentions advanced on behalf of the petitioner, respondent No.1 has merely observed that since respondent No.2 has not passed final orders he does not see any reason to interfere with the order of suspension. On this premise, while declining to grant stay, respondent No.1 disposed of the appeal at the admission stage with the direction to respondent No.2 to complete enquiry and take appropriate action at the earliest possible time. In my opinion, the approach of respondent No.1 in summarily disposing of the appeal while rejecting the stay application cannot be upheld. Being the appellate authority, he is charged with the duty to consider the appeal with objectivity irrespective of whether the order passed by the subordinate authority is interim or final in nature. Respondent No.1 has failed to apply his mind to the nature of the charges framed against the petitioner and whether the elements of prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury lie in his favour for granting interim order pending appeal or not. Even if respondent No.1 felt that since the appeal itself was filed against the interim order, the same could be disposed of, he should consider whether it is appropriate to keep the petitioner under suspension pending enquiry. These relevant aspects have not been kept in mind by respondent No.1 while rejecting the appeal on the ground that respondent No.2 has not passed final order. From the facts noted above, it is evident that the petitioner is subjected to repeated inspections and orders of suspension and cancellation. The order of cancellation passed earlier is subject matter of a Writ Petition which is still pending in this court in which interim order of suspension has been granted. In the light of these facts and the explanation offered by the petitioner that due to heavy rain there was delay in distribution of commodities in respect of which entries in the cards were made and that there was no complaint from any cardholder of non-supply of commodities, I find the elements of prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury in favour of the petitioner for continuing him as fair price shop dealer till completion of enquiry by respondent No.2 and passing of final order. For the above mentioned reasons, the Writ Petition is allowed. The orders of respondent Nos.1 and 2 are set- aside. The petitioner shall be continued as the fair price shop dealer till completion of enquiry and passing of final order by respondent No.2. __________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY.,J Date : 4-2-2011 Note: Furnish copy in a week. AM