IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 15141 of 2008 Between: Smt.Thota Mani W/o.Nagesh Shop No.48, R/o.Door No.15-7-22,Palakol West Godavari District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The State of Andhra Pradesh, Through District Collector West Godavari at Eluru 2 The State of Andhra Pradesh,Through Revenue Divisonal Officer, Narsapur, West Godavari District 3 The State of Andhra Pradesh, Through Joint Collector West Godavari District at Eluru 4 The State of Andhra Pradesh, Through Tahsildar, Palakol, West Godavari 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 a writ order or direction particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the order in Roc.CsS-1/11 Appeal/2008 dated 5.7.2008 of the 3rd respondent in rejecting petitioner stay petition pending appeal against the order inRoc.No.568/2008(E) dated 14.6.2008 of the 2nd respondent as illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the same by directing the 3rd respondent to grant stay pending disposal of the appeal and pass such other orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.RADHA KRISHNA POLISETTY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO :15141 of 2008 ORDER: The writ petition is directed against an interlocutory order of the 3rd respondent dated 5.7.2008, whereby the 3rd respondent declined the petitioner’s application for grant of interim stay pending appeal before the 3rd respondent. On allegation that the petitioner, a fair price shop dealer of Palakol Town, was not staying at Palakol, but had left for Hyderabad on getting married recently and was running the shops through her sister one Venkata Lakshmi and after a due process of enquiry, the 2nd respondent by an order dated 14.6.2008, cancelled the authorization granted to the petitioner under Clause 5(4) of the (Control) Order, 2001. Assailing the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the 3rd respondent along with an application for interim stay of the order of cancellation. The 3rd respondent in the order impugned recorded that since the irregularities committed by the petitioner-appellant are seen to be grave in nature, he is not inclined to grant stay and that the appeal is however taken on file and posted for further hearing on 19.7.2008. The petitioner impeaches this order contending that the petitioner had not abandoned Palakol, but had temporarily proceeded to Hyderabad to attend to her ailing mother-in-law and that during the interrignum, on a misconveived notion that she had abandoned Palakol, the order of suspension came to be passed. These are factual issues that are more appropriately considered by the appellate authority and not by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, during the pendency of the appeal before the 3rd respondent. As such, a scrutiny by this Court at this point in time would amount to parallel proeedings. In so far as the impugned order dated 5.7.2008 is concerned, that is an order passed within the spectrum of the appellate discretion of the 3rd respondent. There is neither patent or latent perversity discernible from the order, warranting interference. Strict and searching scrutiny of the material facts in judicial review of an interim order, is neither proper nor called for. On the aforesaid analysis, the writ petition is without merits and is accordingly dismissed. The 3rd respondent may expeditiously dispose of the appeal preferred by the petitioner. The writ petition is dismissed with the above observations. No costs. ____________________ GODA RAGHURAM,J DATE: 15th July, 2008 pnb