THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.4183 of 2010 ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies representing the respondents. Petitioner is an authorized dealer of fair price shop No.152 situated at Johrapuram Village and Mandal, Kurnool District, for distribution of scheduled commodities. On 08.12.2009, the 3rd respondent - Assistant Supply Officer, Kurnool visited the fair price shop of the petitioner and inspected records and stocks available in the premises. Based on the report submitted by the 3rd respondent, the 1st respondent – Joint Collector, Kurnool, directed the 2nd respondent - Revenue Divisional Officer, Kurnool, to take necessary action against the petitioner. Pursuant to the directions issued by the 1st respondent, the 2nd respondent passed order, dated 15.01.2010 suspending the authorisation of the petitioner, pending enquiry. The petitioner stated that against the said order, she filed an appeal along with the stay application before the 1st respondent under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Public Distribution System Control Order, 2008 framed under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, but no orders have been passed thereon as yet. In the impugned order, it is stated that the 3rd respondent found some variations in stocks when they are compared with the book balances and that the petitioner got appointment as a temporary fair price shop dealer by producing a false certificate. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that variations found in the stocks pertaining to the fair price shop of the petitioner, are very minimal and they are in permissible limits. He further submitted that at the time when the petitioner was appointed as a temporary dealer, the requisite qualification was only 7th class. He also submitted that though the petitioner filed appeal along with the stay application before the 1st respondent, no orders have been passed thereon. A perusal of the impugned order shows that variations found in the stocks pertaining to the fair price shop of the petitioner are minimal. Even the allegation that the petitioner got appointment as a temporary dealer by producing a bogus certificate is correct or not, is a matter to be decided by the appellate authority. In view of the same, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing the 1st respondent to dispose of the appeal preferred by the petitioner as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, and the impugned order, dated 15.01.2010 shall remain suspended till the 1st respondent disposes of the appeal. I further direct that the respondents shall not make any permanent arrangement in the place of the petitioner. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. _______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 24th FEBRUARY, 2010. Note: issue c.c. in four (4) days. kvni