THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.19439 of 2011 Date: 12.07.2011 Between: Bojjam Rajitha … Petitioner and The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Commissioner, C.S. Bhavan, Hyderabad and others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.19439 of 2011 ORDER : Heard Sri G. Vijayapal Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, as well as the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for the respondents, and with their consent the writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage. 2. The petitioner is a Fair Price Shop dealer of Dumpillapalli, H/o. Bhagirthipet Village, Regonda Mandal, Warangal District. On a report submitted by the 4th respondent-Tahsildar, Regonda Mandal, alleging that card holders caught a passenger Auto bearing No.AP-36-W-0086 while transporting 240 litres of P.D.S. kerosene oil being diverted by the petitioner to the black-market and proceedings were initiated against the petitioner under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The 3rd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, Mulug, Warangal District, also initiated the disciplinary proceedings under the A.P. State Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008 and suspended the authorization of the petitioner pending enquiry by progs.No.G/2585/2010, dated 13.12.2010. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has invoked an alternative remedy by way of filing an appeal before the 2nd respondent-Joint Collector, Warangal, on 5.7.2011. Even though no separate application for stay has been filed, a request to that effect was made in the memorandum of appeal. Even while the said appeal is pending consideration, the petitioner has filed this writ petition to declare the action of the 2nd respondent in not granting any interim orders, as arbitrary and illegal. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegations made against the petitioner are false and that the petitioner has not violated the provisions of the A.P. State Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008. Therefore, the learned counsel submits that the 2nd respondent ought to have considered the request of the petitioner and granted stay enabling the petitioner to continue as Fair Price Shop dealer. 4. A perusal of the order passed by the 3rd respondent shows that it was passed on 13.12.2010. Admittedly, as against the said order, the petitioner has filed an appeal on 5.7.2011, which is after a lapse of more than six months. In fact, the appeal has to be filed within thirty days from the date of receipt of the order. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner has not stated the date of receipt of a copy of the order of suspension. As mentioned above, the appeal was filed only on 5.7.2011 and even without giving any breathing time to the 2nd respondent-appellate authority to consider the said appeal or to grant stay, as the case may be, the petitioner has approached this Court. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief in this writ petition. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. This order, however, does not preclude the 2nd respondent to consider the request of the petitioner for stay and pass appropriate orders expeditiously. ________________________ JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI 12.07.2011. Msr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.19439 of 2011 12.07.2011 (Msr)