THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.5645 of 2011 Date:08.03.2011 Between: Smt.L.Jhansi Rani ..... Petitioner AND The District Collector (Civil Supplies), Guntur District and others .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri I.Koti Reddy Counsel for Respondents: AGP for Civil Supplies The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the inaction of respondent No.1 in passing orders on the stay application filed by the petitioner, along with the revision petition filed by him challenging order, dated 17.02.2011, of respondent No.2, as illegal and arbitrary. I have heard Sri I.Koti Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. The fair price shop dealership of the petitioner was cancelled by respondent No.3 by his order, dated 10.11.2010, on two grounds, namely, that she was selling kerosene oil at Rs.13.50 ps per litre instead of at Rs.13.00 per litre and that at the time of inspection she failed to produce the authorisation. The appeal filed by the petitioner against the said order was dismissed by respondent No.2 by his order, dated 17.02.2011. It is the pleaded case of the petitioner that against the said order, she filed a revision petition, along with an application for stay, before respondent No.1 on 01.03.2011 and that so far no orders on the stay application have been passed. A perusal of the material shows that during the pendency of the appeal before respondent No.2, he declined to grant stay of cancellation of order of respondent No.3. In W.P.No.1810 of 2011, this Court was inclined to direct the petitioner’s continuance as fair price shop dealer till the disposal of the appeal. As the revision is pending before respondent No.1, it is not appropriate for this Court to render conclusive findings on merits. However, a perusal of order of respondent No.2 prima facie shows that he has not referred to the details of the persons, who allegedly made statements that the petitioner was selling kerosene at higher prices. Except a cryptic observation that the statements of the cardholders were recorded, no reliance was placed on any such material. Being revisional authority, respondent No.1 ought to have considered the petitioner’s application for stay and passed appropriate orders. As he failed to do so, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner deserves an interim order during the pendency of the revision having been prima facie satisfied that the orders of respondent Nos.2 and 3 suffer from illegalities. Accordingly, orders of respondent Nos.2 and 3, dated 17.02.2011 and 10.11.2010, respectively, are suspended pending revision petition before respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 is directed to dispose of the revision petition, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that the views expressed in this order are intended only for the purpose of disposal of this writ petition and respondent No.1 shall be free to pass appropriate final order in the revision petition on the basis of the record available without being influenced by these views. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.7040 of 2011 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 08th March, 2011 Note: Issue CC by Monday. (b/o) VGB