THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.21882 of 2011 Date: 05.08.2011 Between: Varada Dalinguruvulu … Petitioner and The District Collector, Srikakulam District, Srikakulam and others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.21882 of 2011 ORDER : Heard Sri Challa Srinivasa 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. In this writ petition, the petitioner, a Fair Price Shop dealer of Tettangi-II, Tettangi Village, Veeragattam Mandal, Srikakulam District, has challenged the orders of the 2nd respondent-Joint Collector, Srikakulam District, in SR (A) No.6/2011 S2, dated 8.3.2011 rejecting to stay the operation of the orders of the 3rd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, Palakonda, Srikakulam District, in D.Dis.No.1039/2010 CS, dated 10.1.2011, whereunder the authorization of the petitioner to run the Fair Price Shop has been cancelled. 3. It appears that initially the authorization of the petitioner was cancelled and in the hierarchical remedies invoked, the matter was remanded to the 3rd respondent for reconsideration. Accordingly, the 3rd respondent considered the matter and passed orders on 10.1.2011 cancelling the authorization of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the 2nd respondent on 1.2.2011. Along with the appeal, the petitioner also filed an application seeking to stay the operation of the orders dated 10.1.2011 of the 3rd respondent. The 2nd respondent, on a consideration of the matter, rejected the said stay application observing that the petitioner did not produce any evidence in support of his case as to the allegations that the shop was being run by his nephew and not by benami person. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition for the aforesaid relief. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even though considerable time has elapsed eversince the appeal has been filed, the 2nd respondent has not taken any action to dispose of the said appeal. It is contended that the delay in disposal of the said appeal is causing prejudice to the petitioner. Therefore, the learned counsel submits that the petitioner is entitled for interim order pending disposal of the said appeal. 5. I am unable to agree with the said contention of the learned counsel. A perusal of the impugned order dated 8.3.2011 passed by the 2nd respondent rejecting to grant stay shows that the petitioner could not produce any evidence in support of his claim. Therefore, it cannot be said that the impugned order suffers from any illegality or infirmity. 6. Indisputably, as against the order of cancellation passed by the 3rd respondent, the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the 2nd respondent on 1.2.2011. Even though considerable time has elapsed since then, no orders are passed on the said appeal. In matters of this nature, the Statutory authorities are expected to consider and take a decision expeditiously within a time frame. 7. In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs. ________________________ JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI 05.08.2011. NOTE: Issue C.C. in two days. (B/O) Msr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.21882 of 2011 05.08.2011 (Msr)