IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.17485 of 2007 BETWEEN D. Adinarayana. ... PETITIONER AND Joint Collector, Anantapur District and three others. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. K. SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: ORDER: Aggrieved by the order dated 10.07.2007 passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Penukonda, Ananthapur District, canceling his authorization as the fair price shop dealer of Devereddiplli village, Nallacheruvu Tanakal Mandal, Ananthapur District, the petitioner filed an appeal in Rc.No.K4/PKD/443/2007 before the Joint Collector, Ananthapur District, the first respondent herein. As the appellate authority rejected the petitioner’s stay application on 20.07.2007, the petitioner approached this Court by way of the present writ petition seeking suspension of the order dated 10.07.2007. 2. Though the writ petition was disposed of by this Court in the first instance by order dated 31.12.2007, the said order was set aside in Review Petition.No.1454 of 2008 on 28.01.2008, as it was based on the erroneous impression that the fourth respondent in the writ petition had expired. The writ petition was accordingly restored to the file and is now coming up for hearing. 3. Sri. K. Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner, stated that the temporary dealer who was appointed in the place of the petitioner expired and no permanent arrangements were made thereafter for appointment of a dealer for the subject fair price shop. It is submitted that the appeal before the Joint Collector, Ananthapur District, is still pending and was not disposed of till date. 4. It is pertinent to note that no orders of stay were granted by this Court interdicting the appellate authority from proceeding with the hearing of the petitioner’s appeal. The mere pendency of this writ petition was not a bar to the disposal of the appeal by the appellate authority. As the said appeal has been kept pending for the last three years and no interim orders were passed in the said appeal or by this Court in the present writ petition, the ends of justice would be sufficiently served by directing the Joint Collector, Ananthapur District, to dispose of the petitioner’s appeal expeditiously and in any event not later than three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is disposed of with the above direction. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ SANJAY KUMAR, J April 28, 2011 DSK