THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.18806 OF 2009 Dated 8th September, 2009 Between: S Nate Naik …Petitioner And The Revenue Divisional Officer Dharmavaram, Anantapur District And another …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri Kothapalli Ram Counsel for the respondents: G.P for Civil Supplies The Court made the following O R D E R: The writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking directions by way of Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.1 in not disposing of the appeal preferred by him on 04.08.2009, against the proceedings of respondent No.2 dated 25.07.2009, as illegal and arbitrary. He also sought for a consequential direction to respondent No.1 to dispose of the said appeal. The petitioner was appointed as fair price shop dealer of Nusikottala Thanda, Kalyandurg Mandal, Anantapur District for distribution of the essential commodities. On certain allegations, respondent No.2-Tahsildar, Kalyandurg Mandal, Anantapur District, passed orders dated 25.07.2009, suspending the authorisation of the petitioner as fair price shop dealer, by recording reasons, in exercise of his powers conferred under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh State Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008 (for short “the Control Order, 2008”). Against the said order, the petitioner has preferred an appeal on 04.08.2009 before respondent No.1 and it is the grievance of the petitioner that respondent No.1 is not disposing of the said appeal. As per the Control Order, 2008, against the orders of the primary authority i.e., the Tahsildar, appeal lies to the Revenue Divisional Officer and in the instant case, such appeal has already been preferred by the petitioner on 04.08.2009. Though it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the allegations on which the authorisation of the petitioner was suspended by the Tahsildar are false, it is not desirable for this Court to go into the merits of the contentions raised by him, in this writ petition, in view of pendency of the appeal before respondent No.1. Since, the appeal is stated to have been preferred by the petitioner before respondent No.1 on 04.08.2009, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with the direction to respondent No.1 to dispose of the said appeal, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. _____________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J Dated 8th September, 2009 vrn