THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.8953 of 2010 Dated:21.04.2010 Between: Sri P.Narayanappa. ...Petitioner And The Joint Collector cum Addl.Dist.Magistrate, Anantapur, Anantapur District, And others. ...Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.8953 of 2010 ORDER: The fourth respondent was the permanent dealer of Fair Price Shop of Jowkulakotha Palli Village of Amadagur Mandal in Anantapur District. The second respondent initiated action under Clause 5(5) of the Andhra Pradesh State Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008 (the Control Order). Her authorization was suspended in view of as many as twelve charges. She preferred appeal unsuccessfully. Thereafter, she preferred revision. The District Collector having come to the conclusion that charges 2 to 6 were not proved, remanded the matter to the second respondent to conduct enquiry into charges 7 to 10 and conclude the enquiry. Therefore, after concluding enquiry, by order dated 06.02.2010 the second respondent exonerated the fourth respondent taking a lenient view and directed the fourth respondent to pay penalty of Rs.3,000/- and her authorization was directed to be restored. The petitioner was appointed as temporary dealer in June 2008 pending disciplinary action against the fourth respondent. Aggrieved by the order of the second respondent dated 06.02.2010 exonerating the fourth respondent, he preferred an appeal before the first respondent. He also prayed for order of stay. By order dated 06.03.2010 the stay was rejected and the parties were directed to appear before the appellate authority on 20.03.2010. Even thereafter, the matter was not disposed of by the appellate authority. Thereafter, the petitioner filed the instant writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the appellate authority in not granting stay as illegal and arbitrary. Any order passed by the appellate authority is subject to revision under Clause 21 of the Control Order. Be that as it is, as the second respondent has taken a lenient view against the fourth respondent about which the petitioner has a grievance, it would be in the interest of justice to direct the appellate authority to adjudicate the appeal of the petitioner itself instead of again deciding the validity of the interlocutory order. Therefore, the Writ Petition is disposed of observing that the first respondent shall dispose of the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of the second respondent within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner is also given liberty to approach the appellate authority with a copy of this order. ____________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 21.04.2010 Note: Issue C.C by 23.04.2010. B/o. vs