THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY W.P.No.25706 of 2010 Date : 8-10-2010 Between : Smt.K.Appamma .. Petitioner And Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal Secretary to Government, Agriculture & Cooperation (Civil Supplies) Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and others .. Respondents Counsel for petitioner : Sri K.G.K. Prasad Counsel for respondents : Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY W.P.No.25706 of 2010 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a mandamus to set-aside order dated 22-9-2010 of respondent No.2 in so far as it relates to rejection of the petitioner’s application for stay is concerned. I have heard Sri K.G.K. Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. The petitioner, whose fair price shop dealership was cancelled by respondent No.3 vide his order dated 28-8-2010, filed an appeal before respondent No.2. As the stay application filed by the petitioner was not disposed of by him, the petitioner filed W.P.No.23928/2010. This Court by order dated 27-9-2010 disposed of the said Writ Petition with the direction to respondent No.2 to dispose of the petitioner’s stay application within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order. However, respondent No.2 purported to have disposed of the petitioner’s stay application on 22-9-2010 itself. A perusal of the impugned order shows that while admitting the appeal filed by the petitioner, respondent No.2 has rejected the application for stay. While doing so, respondent No.2 failed to assign any reasons whatsoever. In my opinion, when a statutory appeal is preferred, it is incumbent upon respondent No.2 to examine the grounds and assign reasons at least in brief, if not elaborate, for his disinclination to grant interim order. Absence of reasons even while rejecting the applications for stay vitiates the very order itself. Inasmuch as the appeal of the petitioner is pending before respondent No.2, I am of the opinion that in the interests of justice, the order passed by respondent No.3 which is subject matter of appeal before respondent No.2, shall not be given effect to. For the above mentioned reasons, the impugned order passed by respondent No.2 to the extent of rejection of stay is set- aside. The order of respondent No.3 dated 28-8-2010 shall remain stayed pending appeal before respondent No.2. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, WPMP No.32824/2010 is disposed of as infructuous. ___________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY.,J Date : 8-10-2010 AM