THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.1810 of 2011 Dated 01st February, 2011 Between: Smt.L.Jhansi Rani …Petitioner And The Joint Collector (Civil Supplies), Guntur District and others …Respondents Counsel for petitioner: Sri I.Koti Reddy Counsel for respondents: AGP for Civil Supplies The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to set aside proceedings, dated 15.12.2010, of respondent No.1, whereby he has dismissed the application for stay filed by the petitioner, pending appeal against the order, dated 10.11.2010, of respondent No.2. I have heard Sri I.Koti Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. A perusal of the record shows that the petitioner’s fair price shop authorisation was cancelled on two grounds, namely, that she has sold kerosene oil at 0.50 ps more per litre than the prescribed price and that she has failed to produce the valid authorisation at the time of inspection. In reply to the show-cause notice issued by respondent No.2, the petitioner has denied both the charges made against her. As regards the first charge, the petitioner has stated that the allegation that she was selling the kerosene at 0.50 ps higher per litre is absolutely baseless, as the same was invented by some disgruntled elements. With regard to the second charge, the petitioner has explained that she has submitted her authorisation to respondent No.3 for renewal by paying prescribed fee under challan, dated 12.06.2009. She has produced challan in support of her plea that the original authorisation was with respondent No.3 and that by virtue of the provision, which provides for deemed renewal, if the application is not disposed of within one month, she is continuing as dealer. As respondent No.2 has not accepted the above contentions and cancelled her authorisation, the petitioner has filed an appeal before respondent No.1. She has also filed an application for stay along with the appeal. The said stay application was dismissed by respondent No.1 vide his order, dated 15.12.2010. A perusal of this order shows that respondent No.1 failed to assign any reasons whatsoever in rejecting the application of stay, while keeping the appeal pending. In my opinion, respondent No.1, being the appellate authority empowered to grant an order of stay, is duty bound to assign reasons at least briefly for his refusal to grant stay. The nature of the allegations and the explanation offered by the petitioner and the fact that respondent No.1 has entertained the appeal, establish the elements of balance of convenience and irreparable injury in favour of the petitioner for grant of interim order, pending the appeal before respondent No.1. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the impugned order of respondent No.1 rejecting the stay application of the petitioner cannot be sustained in law and on facts. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The petitioner shall be continued as fair price shop dealer till disposal of the appeal by respondent No.1. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.2208 of 2011 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 01st February, 2011 Note: Issue CC in three days. (b/o) VGB