IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 24844 of 2004 Between: A. Gangaiah, S/o. Ankaiah, Padmati naidupalem Village, Cheemakurthi Mandal, Prakasam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Joint Collector, Prkasam District, Ongole. 2 The revenue Divisional Officer, Ongole, Prakasam, District. 3 The mandal Revenue Officr, Cheemakurthi Mandal, Cheemakurthi, Prakasam District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to Issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent not passing any orders on the stay application file by the petitioner in appeal filed by him against the order of the Second respondent dt. 5.12.2004 passed in D.Dis.838/2004, pending appeal on 23.12.2004 and consequently to suspend the order of the Second Respondent passed in his proceedings D.Dis.838/2004 dt. 5.12.2004 pending disposal of the appeal against the said order before the 1st Respondent filed by the petitioner and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.G.PEDDA BABU Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court at the stage of admission made the following ORDER: The dealership as well as the authorization of the petitioner were cancelled by the second respondent through proceedings dated 05.12.2004. Against the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the first respondent, together with an application for grant of stay. His grievance is that the first respondent has not passed any orders either in the stay application or in the appeal, and seeks appropriate directions in this regard. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. Admittedly, the petitioner preferred an appeal against the order of cancellation, together with an application for stay. Except where the orders of cancellation are passed either by an authority not vested with the power or in violation of principles of natural justice, this Court does not interfere with the same, particularly when the appeal is pending. The question as to whether the charges on the basis of which the dealership of the petitioner was cancelled are true or not, or whether the order of cancellation suffers from any illegality, needs to be considered by the first respondent. Permitting a dealer, whose authorization is cancelled, to operate during the pendency of the appeal, is almost rare. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to pass appropriate orders in the appeal itself within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is further directed that the second respondent shall not appoint any dealer on regular basis in the vacancy caused on account of cancellation of the dealership of the petitioner, till the disposal of the appeal. There shall be no order as to costs. ----------------------- 30.12.2004 ksld To 1 The Joint Collector, Prkasam District, Ongole. 2 The revenue Divisional Officer, Ongole, Prakasam, District. 3 The mandal Revenue Officr, Cheemakurthi Mandal, Cheemakurthi, Prakasam District. 4 Two C.Cs. to the Government Pleader for Civil Supplies, High Court Buildings, A.P., Hyderabad, (OUT). 5 Two C.D. Copies.