HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY W.P.No.27638 of 2010 Date : 9-11-2010 Between : Y.Amaravathi w/o.Muttaiah .. Petitioner And Government of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Secretary, Panchayat Raj Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others .. Respondents Counsel for petitioner : Sri C.Nageswar Rao Counsel for respondents : Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj The Court made the following : ORDER: The grievance of the petitioner in this Writ Petition who was removed from the office of Sarpanch by order dated 25-10-2010 of respondent No.2 is that respondent No.1 having entertained revision against the said order along with the stay application filed by the petitioner, has not passed any order so far on the stay application. Sri C.Nageswar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner at the hearing stated that the Upa Sarpanch who is not impleaded in the Writ Petition has already taken charge in pursuance of the order of removal of the petitioner. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj stated that as respondent No.1 has called for records from respondent No.2, no order has been passed on the stay application. In my opinion, there can be no justification for the appellate authority not to show urgency in passing orders on stay applications and making the litigant wait for substantially long periods in the name of obtaining reports or information from the subordinate officers. The very purpose of the statutory provision providing for legal remedies will be frustrated by long delays caused by the appellate or revisional authorities in passing appropriate orders on urgent applications. Obviously, on account of the delay caused by respondent No.1 in showing reasonable dispatch in passing appropriate order on the stay application filed by the petitioner, the Upa Sarpanch appears to have taken charge. It is therefore appropriate that respondent No.1 shall act with reasonable swiftness in dealing with the stay applications before passing final orders in the main case. Inasmuch as the petitioner’s stay application is stated to be pending before respondent No.1, the said respondent is directed to dispose of the same within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Subject to the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, WPMP No.35285/2010 is disposed of as infructuous. ____________________ C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy.,J Date : 9-11-2010 AM