IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 11063 of 2008 Between: K.N. Vijaya Gowri W/o. K.V.Nagaraju R/o. D.No. 17/208, Buruju Street, Main Bazar, Dharmavaram, Anantapur District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Dharmavaram, Anantapur District. 2 The Tahsildar, Dharmavaram Mandal, Anantapur District. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction declaring the order of the 1st respondent passed in Rc.No. F/DMV/778/2008 dated 07.05.2008 rejecting the stay application of the appeal and the order of the 2nd respondent passed in Rc.No. 173/2008 CSDT dated 03.05.2008 as illegal, arbitrary and one without jurisdiction. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.O.MANOHER REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: The Court made the following : Form-NIC-OGS/WP{KSRANI} O R D E R: The petitioner is a dealer of Fair Price Shop No.8 of 8th Ward, Dharmavaram Municipality, Anantapur District. Through an order, dated 3.5.2008, the Tahsildar, the 2nd respondent herein, suspended the authorization of the petitioner. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, the 1st respondent herein, together with an application for stay. The stay was rejected by the 1st respondent through his order dated 7.5.2008. Hence, the writ petition. Sri O.Manohar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that even as per the recitals in the order of suspension, the only irregularity found was with regard to the stocks held by the husband of the petitioner and not even an iota of allegation was made against the petitioner. He contends that there is absolutely no justification for the impugned proceedings and the 1st respondent ought to have granted stay. The learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies, on the other hand, submits that the appeal itself was directed to be listed on 19.5.2008 and no interference is warranted at this stage. It is no doubt true that there is no allegation whatsoever as regards the stocks maintained by the petitioner or about the conduct of the fair price shop, and the only base is the discrepancy of the stocks held by the husband of the petitioner as an independent businessman and the allegation about his purchase of certain quantities from another dealer. These, however, are the aspects, which certainly can be taken into account by the 1st respondent. Having realized the urgency in the matter, he fixed the date for hearing the appeal which has already become ripe for disposal and the uncertainty prevailing in the matter can be resolved by requiring the 1st respondent to dispose of the appeal itself within a short time. Hence, this writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to pass necessary orders in the appeal preferred by the petitioner, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. ______________ 28.05.2008 Note: Furnish copy in three days B/o bcj