IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD. (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION NO.27896 OF 2008 B e t w e e n: Smt. P. Sesharatnam. - - - Petitioner. A n d The Joint Collector, Guntur, and two others. - - - 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 a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction declaring the impugned order made in Rc.No.2880/2008-B, dated 24-10-2008 on the file of Revenue Divisional Officer, Narasaraopet, as illegal, arbitrary and also violative of principles of natural justice and pass such other orders. Counsel for the Petitioner : M/s. D. Krishna Murthy. Counsel for the Respondents : G. P. for Civil Supplies. The court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION NO.27896 OF 2008 O R D E R: This writ petition has been filed challenging the orders of the Second Respondent herein who is the Revenue Divisional Officer, Narasaraopet, Guntur District, in respect of proceedings in Rc.No.2880/2008-B, dated 24-10-2008, suspending the petitioner’s Fair Price Shop authorization, pending enquiry as illegal. It appears that the District Supply Officer, Guntur, submitted a report dated 17-10-2008 to the second respondent herein alleging that the petitioner was not maintaining the shop as per the prescribed guidelines and at the time of inspection, 1.35 quintals of rice and 89 empty gunny bags were only available as ground stock as against 150 bags of rice. On the basis of the said report, the second respondent initiated disciplinary action by the impugned orders dated 24-10-2008 and suspended the authorization pending enquiry. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the first respondent herein and sought for stay of the said orders. As the first respondent did not pass any orders on the stay petition, the petitioner approached this Court. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not committed any irregularity and at any rate, the allegations are trivial in nature and the said allegations do not warrant suspension of the authorization. Learned Government Pleader submits that since the orders impugned in the writ petition have already been challenged in the appeal, the petitioner can as well await the result of the Appeal. It is not in dispute that the impugned order in this writ petition is under challenge in the Appeal. I am therefore, not inclined to express any opinion on the merits of the case. However, this Court while admitting the writ petition, by orders in W.P. M.P. No.36566 of 2008, dated 23-12-2008, suspended the operation of the orders of the second respondent, thereby, the petitioner has been distributing the commodities. Any dislocation in distribution of commodities at this point of time would cause inconvenience to the cardholders. It is therefore appropriate that the appeal itself should be disposed of within a time frame. In the circumstances, the first respondent is directed to dispose of the Appeal filed by the petitioner, against the orders of the second respondent in Rc.No.2880/2008-B, dated 24-10-2008, as early as possible, preferably within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Pending disposal of the Appeal, Status- quo as on today, shall remain be maintained. The Writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. __________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J. DATE: 12-11-2010. Dsh.