THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.28299 of 2011 Date: 19.10.2011 Between: Smt. J. Subhashini … Petitioner and The Joint Collector, Kurnool District, Kurnool and another. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.28299 of 2011 ORDER : Heard Sri P. Govind Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, as well as the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for the respondents. Having regard to the short relief sought for by the learned counsel for petitioner at the hearing to direct the 1st respondent to dispose of the stay petition filed along with the appeal within a time frame, with the consent of both the counsel the writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage. 2. The petitioner claims to have been appointed as a Fair Price Shop dealer on permanent basis in respect of Shop No.23 situated in Prathakota (East) Village, Pagidyala Mandal, Kurnool District, by proceedings Rc.B.157/2006, dated 23.3.2006 of the 2nd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, Kurnool Division. On a representation of the cardholders of Prathakota (East) Village, the Tahsildar of Pagidyala Mandal, Kurnool District, caused an enquiry through the Mandal Revenue Inspector and submitted a report dated 9.9.2011 to the 2nd respondent alleging that the petitioner is not residing in the village and the essential commodities are being distributed with less weighment/measurement, besides not maintaining the prescribed timings. Taking cognizance of the said report, the 2nd respondent passed order in Rc.B.1761/2011, dated 21.9.2011 suspending the authorisation of the petitioner pending enquiry. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal under Clause 20 of the A.P. State Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008 before the 1st respondent-Joint Collector, Kurnool District, on 28.9.2011 along with an application seeking stay. The grievance of the petitioner is that even though considerable time has elapsed, the 1st respondent has neither considered the said appeal nor passed any orders on the stay application. As the 1st respondent is not likely to consider the appeal within a reasonable time causing hardship to her, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 3. Indisputably, as against the order passed by the 2nd respondent suspending the authorisation, the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the 1st respondent on 28.9.2011 along with a stay application. Even though considerable time has elapsed eversince then, the 1st respondent has not passed any orders on the said stay application. In matters of this nature, the Statutory authorities are expected to pass appropriate orders expeditiously within a time frame so as to avoid hardship to the parties. 4. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the short relief sought for during the course of hearing, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to dispose of the stay application, which was filed along with the appeal, filed by the petitioner against the order dated 21.9.2011 of the 2nd respondent and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs. ________________________ JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI 19.10.2011. NOTE:- Issue C.C. in two days. (B/O) Msr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.28299 of 2011 19.10.2011 (Msr)