IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.462 of 2009 Between: B. Sudha Rani W/o. B. Srinivasulu, Cheekatimanipalli Village, Tanakal Mandal, Anantapur District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Joint Collector, Anantapur District, Anantapur. 2 The Sub Collector, Penugonda Division, Penugonda, Anantapur District. 3 The Tahsildar, Tanakal Mandal Office, Tanakal, 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 an appropriate writ, order or direction preferably one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned order of the 2nd respondent vide D.Dis.No.2222/2008-C, dated 01.01.2009, confirming the order of suspension of the petitioner's authorization in respect of Fair Price Shop of Cheekatimanipalli Village, Tanakal Mandal, Anantapur District, as illegal, arbitrary, malice in law, violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India, as well as Clause (5) of A.P. State Public Distribution Control Order, 2001 as amended in the year 2008, and consequently direct the respondents to continue the petitioner as Dealer of the said Fair Price Shop as usual. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.M.PRASADA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.462 OF 2009 ORDER: This writ petition is filed questioning the order dated 01.01.2009 passed by the 2nd respondent- Sub Collector, Penukonda Division, Anantapur District. It appears, the authorization of the petitioner as fair price shop dealer of Cheekatimanipalli Village, Tanakal Mandal of Anantapur District, was suspended by the 2nd respondent-Sub Collector, Penukonda Division, Anantapur District, vide suspension-cum-show cause notice dated 03.12.2008, for certain irregularities alleged to have been committed by her and she was asked to submit her explanation. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner submitted her explanation and, not being satisfied with the same, the 2nd respondent confirmed the suspension of the authorization of the petitioner, by the impugned order dated 01.01.2009. It is to be noted that challenging the impugned order dated 01.01.2009, the petitioner has already filed a statutory appeal before the 1st respondent-Joint Collector, Anantapur District, on 05.01.2009 along with an application seeking interim stay of the impugned order, but the petitioner complains that neither the stay petition is disposed of nor the appeal is taken up for consideration. In the facts and circumstances, without expressing any opinion on merits, the 1st respondent- Joint Collector, Anantapur District, is directed to dispose of the stay petition if any filed along with the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. _________________ JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU 20th January, 2009. IBL/KSH