THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No. 20587 of 2011 ORAL ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Govt. Pleader for Civil Supplies and both the counsel have consented to dispose of the matter at the admission stage. Petitioner is a fair price shop dealer in respect of Shop No.11 of Pochapur village, Kather Mandal, Medak District. On the instructions of 2nd respondent, the Deputy Tahsildar (CS), Kather Mandal inspected the fair price shop and verified the Registers. His enquiry revealed that the petitioner had illegally sold 50 litres of kerosene to the owner of lorry bearing Registration No. 7T 3678. Basing on the said report, the 2nd respondent herein issued show cause notice dated 18.6.2011 calling upon the petitioner to submit his explanation. It is stated that the petitioner submitted his explanation. In the mean while, the 2nd respondent has passed order dated 12.7.2011 suspending the license of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the 1st respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, Sanga Reddy along with a petition seeking stay of the said Order. The 1st respondent while entertaining the appeal, declined to grant interim orders staying operation of the Order of the 2nd respondent. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition. As per Second proviso to clause 5(7) of the A.P. State Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008, the 2nd respondent is vested with a limited jurisdiction to suspend the authorization for a period of 90 days only. A perusal of the impugned Order however shows that 2nd respondent has suspended the license indefinitely. 1st respondent having entertained the appeal, ought to have taken into consideration the said circumstances and also the other facts into consideration before declining interim orders. Apparently, the 2nd respondent has not made any such exercise. In the aforesaid circumstances, the action of the 1st respondent in refusing to grant interim Order staying the operation of the Order of the 2nd respondent is unsustainable. The Writ Petition is therefore allowed and the orders dated 12.7.2011 passed by the 2nd respondent shall stand suspended, pending disposal of the appeal. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No costs. ___________________ 21.7.2011 CHV