IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.11347 OF 2011 Between: Sri Narsimha Reddy. … Petitioner AND The Joint Collector (C.S), Medak District, Sanga Reddy and two others. … Respondents This Court made the following: O R D E R : Heard, Sri K.Raji Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and the Government Pleader for Civil Supplies and with their consent, the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission. 2. The petitioner, whose authorization to run the Fair Price Shop is suspended, has filed this writ petition to declare the action of the first respondent i.e., Joint Collector (C.S), Medak District, Sanga Reddy, in not passing any orders on the stay application said to have been filed by him along with the appeal against the orders of the second respondent in proceedings No.B2/823/2011, dated 28-03-2011 as illegal and consequently direct the first respondent to pass immediate orders on the said stay application. 3. The petitioner was appointed as a Fair Price Shop Dealer of Tatpally Village, Munipally Mandal, Medak District in the year 1989. The second respondent served a show cause notice No.B/823/2011, dated 28.03.2011 alleging that he failed to maintain schedule timings, Index boards and that he was selling commodities at higher rates and that he has not been obtaining signatures of the cardholders and also failed to keep the shop open regularly. On the said allegations, the petitioner was called upon to submit his explanation. It is stated that the petitioner submitted his explanation to the said show cause notice. Even as the said show cause notice has been issued, the second respondent passed orders in proceedings No.B2/823/2011, dated 28-03-2011 suspending the authorization, pending enquiry. It is stated that against the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Joint Collector (Civil Supplies), Medak District, along with an application to stay the said order. The petitioner complains that although the said appeal along with the stay petition was filed on 08- 04-2011, the first respondent has not passed any orders either in the appeal or in the stay application. The petitioner has therefore filed this writ petition for the aforesaid relief. 4. There does not appear to be any dispute with regard to the orders dated 28-03-2011 of the second respondent and the petitioner filing an appeal along with stay application against the said order. Once a party invokes a remedy available under the Statute, it is incumbent on the concerned authority to take steps and pass appropriate orders, if not immediately, at least within a reasonable time. Therefore, the first respondent at least ought to have considered the stay application and pass appropriate orders within a reasonable time. 5. In the circumstances, this Writ Petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to consider and dispose of the stay petition filed by the petitioner along with the appeal against the orders of the second respondent in Notice No.B2/823/2011, dated 28-03-2011 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law as early as possible, preferably, within a period of three (3) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J Date: 21-04-2011. KVS/BSB THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.11347 OF 2011 (Disposed of. No costs) APRIL 21, 2011 KVS/BSB