IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 11227 of 2008 Between: B.Jayaprakash S/o.B.Subbanna P.C. Pyapili, Thanda Village, Vajrakarur Mandal, Anantapur District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Joint Collector, Anantapur. 2 Revenue Divisional Officer, Anantapur. 3 Tahsildar, Vajrakarur, Anantapur District. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or direction declaring the Order of the 1st respondent in Rc.No.K3/ATP/807/2008, dated 12/05/2008 as illegal, arbitrary and void; and pass such further or other orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.KAMLAKAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 11227 of 2008 ORAL ORDER The petitioner is the authorized dealer of the fair price shop of P.C.Pyapili Thanda village, Vajrakarur Mandal, Ananthapur District. The 2nd respondent herein issued a show cause notice dated.24-10-2007 calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why his authorization should not be cancelled on the three charges speciﬁed thereunder. The petitioner submitted his explanation dated.12-11-2007. However, the 2nd respondent by an order dated.15-04-2008 suspended the authorization of the petitioner observing that deterrent punishment is necessary to keep the dealer away from the public distribution system. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the 1st respondent. Though the appeal was taken on file, the 1st respondent by an order dated.12-05-2008 rejected the petitioner’s application for stay of operation of the order of the 2nd respondent dated.15-04-2008. Challenging the said order passed by the 1st respondent dated.12-05-2008, the present writ petition has been ﬁled. This Court while directing Rule Nisi by an order dated.28-05-2008 granted interim stay of the impugned order and it is not in dispute by virtue of the said interim order the petitioner has been continuing as fair price shop dealer as on today. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 as well as the learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent, who was appointed as temporary dealer consequent to the suspension of the authorization of the petitioner. Though several contentions have been raised by the parties, since the statutory appeal is pending before the 1st respondent, it is neither necessary nor proper for this court to go into the merits of the case. Instead, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the 1st respondent to dispose of the appeal pending on his ﬁle as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after hearing the petitioner as well as the 4th respondent herein. Keeping in view that by virtue of the interim order the petitioner is being continued as a fair price shop dear as on today, there shall be a direction to the respondents to continue the same till the appeal is disposed of by the 1st respondent. No costs. __________ G.ROHINI,J 24th September,2008 Note: Issue CC In one week (B/o) *TSNR