IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION NO:27452 OF 2010 DATED:3.11.2010 Between: Vittalaiah .....PETITIONER AND 1 The Joint Collector, Sangareddy & another .....RESPONDENTs This Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION NO:27452 OF 2010 ORDER: The petitioner is a Fair price shop dealer in respect of shop No:13 of Zaheerabad town. On 20.8.2010, the Deputy Tahsildar (C.S.), Zaheerabad along with vigilance officials inspected the said Fair price shop and appeared to have noticed certain irregularities in the distribution of essential commodities to the card-holders. Based on the report of the said Deputy Tahsildar, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Sangareddy, Medak District-2nd respondent herein suspended the licence of the Fair price shop of the petitioner pending enquiry by orders dated 16.9.2010 in proceedings D.Dis.No:B2/2980/2010-1. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has preferred an appeal under Clause 17 of the A.P. State Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008 to the Joint Collector, Sangareddy, Medak District-1st respondent herein. Along with the said appeal, the petitioner also sought for stay of the operation of the order of the 2nd respondent herein. Since the 1st respondent has not passed orders on the stay petition, the petitioner has approached this Court by the present writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned G.P. for Civil Supplies. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not committed any irregularities and even if the allegations are taken on face value, the irregularities are trivial in nature and the same do not require suspension of the licence pending enquiry. The learned G.P. for Civil Supplies, however, submits that the licence has been suspended based on the report submitted by the Inspecting Staff and since the appeal itself is directed against the suspension of licence, the 1st respondent can as well be directed to dispose of the appeal itself within a time frame. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that the appeal filed by the petitioner against the orders of the 2nd respondent impugned in the appeal could be disposed of in order to obviate the hardship to the petitioner. The 1st respondent is therefore directed to dispose of the appeal itself which is said to have been filed on 18.10.2010 against the orders dated 16.9.2010 in proceedings No:B2/2930/2010-1 of the 2nd respondent herein, within a period of 4 (four) Weeks positively from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, it is made clear that in the event of the appeal not being disposed of within the stipulated time, the order of the 2nd respondent, dated 16.9.2010 in proceedings No:B2/2930/2010-1 shall remain suspended pending disposal of the appeal. ________________ Justice Noushad Ali Date:3.11.2010. gurc THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION NO:27452 OF 2010 3rd November, 2010