THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.4646 of 2011 Date:25.02.2011 Between: V. Sridhar Kumar ..... Petitioner AND The Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Secretary, Hyderabad and others .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri D.Srinivas Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 3: Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj Counsel for Respondent Nos.4 and 5: Sri G. Elisha, standing counsel for Gram Panchayats The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to set aside the order dated 05.12.2009 of respondent No.1, whereby it has stayed the operation of order dated 21.11.2009 of respondent No.3 passed in favour of the petitioner. I have heard Sri D.Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. This case has a long history, which need not be narrated for disposal of this writ petition. It would suffice to note that the petitioner’s appeal filed against the rejection of his application for grant of permission for establishment of a petrol bunk was dismissed by respondent No.4 Gram Panchayat. Respondent No.3 by his order dated 21.11.2009 allowed the second appeal filed by the petitioner against the said decision of respondent No.4. Questioning the said order, respondent No.5 filed a revision under Section 264 of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 before respondent No.1. While entertaining the said revision, the Hon’ble Minister for Panchayat Raj passed the impugned order dated 05.12.2009 granting stay of operation of the order dated 21.11.2009 of respondent No.3. The petitioner has questioned this order in this writ petition, inter alia, on the ground that the order passed by respondent No.3 under Section 128 of the Act is not amenable to the revisional jurisdiction of respondent No.1. The petitioner also raised the grievance that though the order of interim stay was granted as far back as 05.12.2009, the same was not officially communicated to the petitioner till now, which prima facie shows arbitrariness on the part of respondent No.1. The question whether the revision filed by respondent No.5 is maintainable or not need not be adjudicated by this Court at this stage. The petitioner is permitted to raise this question before respondent No.1 and if such a question is raised, the latter shall decide the same. If the petitioner feels aggrieved by the decision of respondent No.1, he shall be free to avail his further remedy. As the revision is pending before respondent No.1, it is directed to dispose of the same, after notice to the petitioner and respondent No.5, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Subject to the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.5754 of 2011 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 25th February, 2011 GHN