THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO :26311 of 2008 DATED: 05-10-2009 Between: B.V.Vijayalakshmi. ..... PETITIONER And The Joint Collector, Anantapur District & 3 others. .....RESPONDENTS ORDER: Questioning the order of appointment, dated 30-08-2008, appointing the 3rd respondent as the Fair Price Shop dealer of Goravanahalli village, petitioner approached the appellate authority-Joint Collector and filed an appeal as provided for under Clause 20 of the A.P.State Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008 ( for brevity, ‘the Act’). Though the 1st respondent- Joint Collector was pleased to suspend the said order of appointment by his order, dated 03-11-2008, subsequently when the 3rd respondent filed a petition to vacate the stay, the said order was modified and the parties were directed to maintain status quo as on that day. The said order was passed on 24-11-2008 and the same is challenged in this Writ Petition. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent and the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for the respondents 1 & 2. 3. In this Writ Petition, the main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that when once the appeal is admitted and stay is granted the said order of stay shall continue during the pendency of the appeal. According to him, as the appeal is pending before the 1st respondent-Joint Collector, the Joint Collector ought not to have vacated the said order on 24-11-2008. In this context, the learned counsel has drawn my attention to sub- Clause 3 of Clause 20 of the control order, which reads as follows: “Pending disposal of an appeal, the appellate authority may direct that the order appealed against shall not take effect until the appeal is disposed of”. 4. From the above wording, it cannot be said that during the pendency of the appeal if the appellate authority grants stay he shall continue the said order. It is apparently his discretion whether to grant stay or not and it is his further discretion as to whether the stay shall be continued or not. Further, the said order vacating the said interim order is dated 24-11-2008 and as of now it is admitted that the 3rd respondent is distributing the scheduled commodities to the card holders. In the light of the above, this Court is of the view that it is not desirable to disturb the same. 5. Accordingly, Writ Petition is dismissed. However, the 1st respondent-Joint Collector is hereby directed to dispose of the appeal by affording sufficient opportunity to the petitioner as well as the 3rd respondent at the earliest, preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ T.GOPALAKRISHNA,J 05th October, 2009. Tsy