IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 14914 of 2009 Between: Smt. Allavala Nagamalleswari W/o. Radhakrishna Murthy Annadanasamjam Complex, Amaravathi road, Guntur town and district. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Regional Joint Commissioner, Multi Zone - II, Tirupathi, Chittoor District. 2 The Deputy Commissioner, guntur, Guntur district, 3 The Gunturu Annadana Samajam, Amaravathi road, Guntur Town, Rep. by its Manager. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in not passing orders on petitioner Revision No.8 of 2009 as illegal, arbitrary and violation of Principles of natural Justice and consequnetly direct the 1st respodnent tro pass orders on Petitioner Revision No.8 of 2009 pending before the 1st respondent and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR ENDOWMENTS The Court made the following : O R D E R:- The main grievance of the petitioner is that even though she preferred a Revision Petition No.8 of 2009 against the order dated 28.03.2009 of the 2nd respondent, along with an application for stay of that order, and notice was ordered to the respondents in the revision on 6.5.2009, the 1st respondent-Regional joint Commissioner has neither disposed of the Revision nor passed any orders on the application for stay. Hence, the present writ petition is filed seeking appropriate directions. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Endowments appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and perused the material placed on record. Since the Revision Petition No.8 of 2009 said to have been preferred by the petitioner is pending disposal before the 1st respondent, the learned counsel for both the parties have agreed to the disposal of the writ petition with the following directions: “The 1st respondent-Regional Joint Commissioner is directed to consider the dispose of the Revision Petition No.8 of 2009 said to have been preferred by the petitioner, expeditiously, and in any case not later than four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is needless to mention that till the disposal of the Revision Petition, both the parties are directed to maintain Status Quo obtaining as on today.” Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. ______________ N.V.RAMANA, J 29th July, 2009 bcj