IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 7306 of 2008 Between: Smt. J. Vasanta Devi W/o. J. Mohan Rao R/o. Kuchipudi Thanda, Kodada Mandal, Nalgonda District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Joint Collector (C.S.), Nalgonda District. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Suryapet, Nalgonda District. 3 Smt. B. Manjula, W/o. B. Venkataramana R/o. Malkajgiri, Hyderabad, C/o. Father Naik, Kuchipudi Thanda Kodad Mandal, Nalgonda District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.BOLLAM LINGAIAH YADAV Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus to set aside order dated 13-02-2008, whereby respondent No.2 appointed respondent No.3 as fair price shop dealer of Kuchipudi Tanda, Kodada Mandal, Nalgonda District. Heard Sri B.Lingaiah Yadav, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and perused the record. By order dated 13-02-2008, respondent No.2 appointed respondent No.3 as dealer of the abovementioned fair price shop. Questioning the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal before respondent No.1. While taking the appeal on file, respondent No.1 declined to grant stay of appointment of respondent No.3, by his order dated 25-03-2008. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent No.3 is not a resident of the place, for which the abovementioned fair price shop is meant, and that she is presently residing in Hyderabad. He, therefore, submitted that the appointment of respondent No.3 as dealer of the abovementioned fair price shop is wholly illegal, and respondent No.1 ought to have stayed the operation of her appointment. Having carefully considered the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner, I have not felt inclined to accept the same. The issue ‘whether the appointment of respondent No.3 is in accordance with the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh State Public Distribution System Control Order, 2001, or not’, is required to be adjudicated in appeal by respondent No.1, and the issue ‘whether, pending appeal, the appointment of respondent No.3 shall be stayed or not’, falls in the realm of discretion of the appellate authority. On the facts of the case, I have no reason to hold that respondent No.1 failed to exercise sound discretion in declining to grant stay. In this view of the matter, the Writ Petition is without any merit and it is, accordingly, dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.9602 of 2008 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is also dismissed. ______________________ (C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) 3rd April, 2008 lur