IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) SATURDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 22743 of 2008 Between: Kunchala Srinivasarao, S/o. Ankalu, R/o. Uppalapadu Village, Narasaraopet Mandal, Guntur District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector (C.S) Guntur District, Guntur. 2 The Joint Collector, Guntur District, Guntur. 3 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Narasarao pet, Guntur District. 4 The Tahasildar, Narasaraopet Mandal, Guntur District. 5 K. Pulla Rao, s/o. Not Known, R/o. Uppalapadu Village, Narasaraopet Mandal, Guntur District. .....RESPONDENTS 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 a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, by declaring the Order of the 1st respondents dated 09-7-2008 passed in Revision Case No. 3/2007-S7 against the petitioner and granted stay against the orders of the 2nd respondents vide A.C.D. Disc.No. 31/2005-S7, as illegal, arbitrary, violate of Article 14, 19 and 21 of constitution of India and against the principles of natural justice consequently set aside the order of the 1st respondents date 09-7-2008 passed in Revision Case No. 3/2007-S7. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.CHALLA.SRINIVASA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 22743 of 2008 O R D E R : This writ petition is ﬁled seeking a declaration that the order passed by the ﬁrst respondent dated 09- 07-2008 granting interim stay of the order passed by the second respondent pending the revision petition preferred by the ﬁfth respondent herein is arbitrary and illegal. Though various contentions have been raised by the petitioner, having regard to the fact that the impugned order is only an interim order, pending the revision petition on the ﬁle of the ﬁrst respondent, I am not inclined to go into the merits of the case and interfere with the discretion exercised by the ﬁrst respondent in grating the stay. Instead, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the ﬁrst respondent to dispose of the revision petition pending on his ﬁle as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order after hearing the petitioner as well as the fifth respondent. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI, J Date: 18-10-2008 KLP