THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION NO.28504 OF 2010 DT.19.11.2010 Between: Polasani Sampath Rao ………….Petitioner Vs. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Narsampet Division, Warangal District and two others. …………..Respondents O R D E R: The writ petition has been filed to declare the order of the first respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, Narsampet Division, Narsampet, Warangal District, dated 23.08.2010 in R.C.No.A/759/2010, suspending the authorisation of the petitioner in respect of shop No.8 of Dharmaraopet Village, Khanapur Mandal, Warangal District as illegal. The petitioner states that she has been running the said fair price shop for more than ten years. Based on the news item published on 08.08.2010 in a daily newspaper that the petitioner is not properly distributing the commodities, the first respondent called for a report from the Tahsildar, Khanapur. The Tahsildar, Khanapur appears to have submitted a report, dated 13.08.2010 alleging that the petitioner did not supply rice to the cardholders and alleged as follows: 1) “Rice of 0.40 kgs was not given to three Ration Cards which were converted from pink to white cards from June, 2010; 2) though distribution of rice was not made to three cards, but entries were made in the distribution register as if 32 kgs of rice was distributed from the month of August, 2010; 3) eight card holders were not given 76 kgs of rice since one year; 4) The cards which are not entered are 20, the rice allotted to them is 2 quintals and 5) the physical balance of rice available in the shop is 1.20 kgs.” Basing on the said report, notice dated 14.08.2010 was given calling for the explanation of the petitioner and the petitioner submitted her explanation, dated 21.08.2010. On consideration of the said explanation, the first respondent holding that the petitioner is not properly supplying the essential commodities, passed the impugned order. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader and with the consent of both parties, this writ petition is being disposed of at the stage of admission. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the allegations made against the petitioner are not true and that even if the allegations are taken on their face value, the lapses are trivial in nature and the same do not warrant suspension of the authorisation. I am not inclined to express any opinion on the merits of the case. Admittedly, the petitioner has already filed an appeal against the impugned order before the second respondent herein and the second respondent has taken the said appeal on file as appeal No.11 of 2010. Having regard to the same, no relief can be granted to the petitioner in this writ petition. It is appropriate that the appeal itself be directed to be disposed of within a time frame. In the circumstances, the second respondent-Joint Collector, Warangal District is directed to dispose of appeal No.11 of 2010 filed by the petitioner against the orders of the first respondent, dated 23.08.2010 in R.C.No.A/759/2010 as early as possible, preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In the event of the appeal not being disposed of within the stipulated time, the petitioner shall be permitted to run the shop pending disposal of the said appeal. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. ________________ NOUSHAD ALI J., Dt.19.11.2010 c.c. in three days. tjs