IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No : 2176 of 2008 Between: C. Rajeswari W/o Chinna Ganganna R/o Ullikantapalli Village, Singanamala Mandal, Anantapur District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Joint Collector, Anantapur Anntapur District. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Anantapur, Anantapur District. 3 the Tahsildar/Mandal Revenue Officer, Singanamala Mandal, Anantapur District. 4 G. Suneetha W/o G. Lakshminarayana R/o 1-288, Anantapur town, Anantapur District .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.K.SRINIVAS Counsel for Respondents 1 to 3: AGP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No : 2176 of 2008 ORDER: This writ petition, in my view, is sheer abuse of process of Court. The petitioner, who claims to be a cardholder, questioned the order of appointment of respondent No.4 as fair price shop dealer of Ullikantapalli Village of Anantapur District, in appeal purported to have been filed before respondent No.1. Before filing the said appeal, the petitioner filed WP.No.27273 of 2007 in this Court and the said writ petition was dismissed by order dated 20.12.2007, wherein the petitioner was permitted to file an appeal within a period of two weeks under Clause 20 of the A.P. Public Distribution Control Order, 2001. The petitioner claimed to have filed appeal before respondent No.1 along with a stay application. On the ground that the stay application was not disposed of, she filed the present writ petition. The petitioner sought for the relief of writ of mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.1 in not passing orders on the stay application as illegal. Ingeniously, the petitioner sought for interim suspension of order dated 17.10.2007 by which respondent No.4 was appointed as fair price shop dealer. If the petitioner had a legitimate grievance on the inaction of respondent No.1 in disposing of her application of stay, she could have sought for a direction to respondent No.1 to dispose of her stay application. Even if the writ petition is allowed, the occasion for suspending operation of order dated 17.10.2007, appointing respondent No.4, would not have arisen. What the petitioner could not have directly achieved in the main writ petition, she cannot seek to achieve by an interim application, which travels far behind the scope of the writ petition. Since the only grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is that respondent No.1 has not disposed of her stay application, the writ petition is disposed of. Respondent No.1 is directed to dispose of the stay application within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Interim order dated 07.02.2008 stands vacated. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.2802 of 2008 is disposed of as infructuos. C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 03.03.2008. ES To 1.2CCs 2.2CD copies