IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.7030 of 2009 Between: A. Devendra S/o. A. Lalappa R/o. Door No. 17/510, Near Prasad Talkies, Guntakal Village & Mandal, Anantapur District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Revenue Divisional Officer, Anantapur, Anantapur District. 2 Tahasildar, Guntakal Mandal, Anantapur 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 may be pleased to issue a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings of the 2nd respondent vide No.Rc.B/102/2009 dt. 18-02-2009 in suspending the dealership of the petitioner on the alleged fake grounds as illegal, arbitrary and violation of principles of natural justice and also violation of Art. 14, 19 & 21 of the Constitution of India, and consequently declare the action of the 1st respondent appellate authority in not passing any orders in the stay application filed along with the Appeal dt. 24-2- 2009 as bad and illegal and direct the respondents herein to permit the petitioner to distribute the commodities to the card-holders of shop No. 32 of Guntakal Town of Anantapur District. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.V.L.SURENDRA Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.7030 of 2009 ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. It appears, the authorization of the petitioner as dealer of fair price shop No.32 of Guntakal Town and Mandal, Anantapur District, was suspended by the 2nd respondent- Tahsildar, Guntakal Mandal, by proceedings dated 18.02.2009, for a period of 90 days, for certain irregularities alleged to have been committed by the petitioner in the distribution of essential commodities to the cardholders attached to his shop. The petitioner contends that he has not committed any irregularities much less the alleged irregularities. He further contends that, questioning the proceedings of the 2nd respondent, he preferred an appeal before the 1st respondent- Revenue Divisional Officer, Anantapur, on 24.02.2009, along with a stay petition, but neither the stay petition is disposed of nor the appeal is taken up for hearing. In the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merits, the 1st respondent- Revenue Divisional Officer, Anantapur, is directed to dispose of the stay petition purported to have been filed by the petitioner along with the appeal preferred against the proceedings dated 18.02.2009 of the 2nd respondent, in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. _________________ JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU 6th April, 2009. IBL