IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.27752 of 2011 BETWEEN Smt. D. Varalakshmi. ... PETITIONER AND The Joint Collector, Kurnool and two others. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. K. RAJANNA Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed with the prayer as under: “For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit filed in support of the above petition, it is there humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue an order or direction or writ more appropriately a WRIT OF MANDAMUS to declare the impugned action of the 1st Respondent in not passing any orders on the stay petition filed by the Petitioner along with her appeal before the 1st Respondent as illegal and further declare the impugned orders passed by the 2nd Respondent in his proceedings No.Rc.B.1475/2011, Dated. 16-08-2011 as illegal and set aside the same and further direct the 3rd Respondnet to receive the D.Ds. for supply of essential commodities from October, 2011 onwards to the Petitioner’s Fair Price Shop at Shop No.9, Ratnapalli Village, Veldurthy Mandal, Kurnool District as per the Authorization issued by the 2nd Respondent is existing to the Petitioner and to pass such other order or orders which are deem fit and just in the circumstances of the case.” 2. Petitioner is a regularly appointed Fair Price Shop Dealer for Shop No.9, Ratnapalli village, Veldurthy mandal, Kurnool District. On the allegation that petitioner is not properly distributing the essential commodities and on the ground that the petitioner is not residing in the village, the authorization granted in her favour was suspended by order dated 16.08.2011 issued in Rc.B.1475/2011 by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kurnool. As against the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Joint Collector along with an application for interim order on 25.08.2011. 3. Mr. K. Rajanna, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the essential commodities, which were alleged to have not been supplied by the petitioner to the cardholders, were not at all supplied to the petitioner. He further submits that the petitioner went to Hyderabad on personal ground only for a few days and as such, it cannot be said that the petitioner is not residing in the village, as alleged. He further submits that the petitioner is dealing in distribution of essential commodities as temporary dealer from 2006 and as permanent dealer from 2008 onwards without any complaints from the cardholders. 4. As much as it is stated that the petitioner has already filed an appeal before the Joint Collector against the order of the RDO dated 16.08.2011, it is not desirable to record any finding on the allegations made against the petitioner. In any event, as per the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh State Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008, there is a remedy of appeal before the Joint Collector and when such a remedy is availed by the petitioner by filing an appeal along with an application for interim order dated 25.08.2011, there is no reason for the appellate authority in not considering even the application for grant of interim order. As it is stated that certain commodities were not even supplied to the petitioner, there was no occasion for the petitioner to supply the same, I deem it appropriate that it is a fit case to suspend the impugned order dated 16.08.2011 issued in Rc.B.1475/2011 pending disposal of the appeal before the Joint Collector. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the first respondent – appellate authority to dispose of the appeal preferred by the petitioner on 25.08.2011 as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. There shall be a further direction that the impugned order dated 16.08.2011 passed by the RDO shall remain suspended till appropriate final orders are passed by the appellate authority. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J October 11, 2011 Note: Furnish C.C. of the order by 13.10.2011. (B/o) DSK