C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, J.

1. This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No. 2, in not passing order on the stay application filed by the petitioner against the order passed by respondent No. 3, confirming the order of respondent No. 2 (sic.4), whereby the petitioner's fair price shop authorization was cancelled, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner's fair price shop authorization was cancelled by respondent No. 4 by order, dated 16.09.2014. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal before respondent No. 3 along with stay application. During the pendency of the appeal, she filed Writ Petition No. 29254 of 2014 with the grievance that respondent No. 3 has not passed any order on the stay application. This Court disposed of the said Writ Petition on 25.09.2014 with the direction to respondent No. 3 to dispose of the appeal and with the further direction that till such disposal, the petitioner shall be continued as the fair price shop dealer. By order, dated 26.11.2014, respondent No. 3 has dismissed the appeal. Writ Petition No. 37575 of 2014 filed by the petitioner questioning the said order was dismissed by this Court in view of availability of alternative remedy of Revision Petition. Accordingly, the petitioner filed Revision Petition on 09.12.2014 before respondent No. 2 along with stay application. The present Writ Petition is filed with the grievance that respondent No. 2 has not passed any order on the stay application.

2 The facts narrated above would show that multiple rounds of litigation are forced to be resorted to by the fair price shop dealers mainly for the reason of non-passing of orders on the stay application by the appellate and the Revisional authorities.

3. In the present case, when this Court itself has passed an order directing continuance of the petitioner as the fair price shop dealer till disposal of the appeal, respondent No. 2 ought to have taken a cue from the same and granted an interim order in favour of the petitioner, more so, when respondent No. 4 has not held even a semblance of enquiry before cancelling the petitioner's fair price shop authorization. As evident from order, dated 16.09.2014, respondent No. 4 has cancelled the petitioner's fair price shop authorization on two allegations, viz., (1) that a person by name-Pidiketi Sankar was found running the petitioner's fair price shop and (2) that there was variation of 4.80 quintals of rice.

4. The petitioner has clearly explained that the said P. Sankar is no other than her father's own brother and that without proper verification of the Sales and Stock Registers, it was alleged that there was variation of 4.80 quintals of rice.

5. In the light of these allegations, an obligation was cast on respondent No. 4 to make a detailed enquiry with reference to entries in the Sales and Stock Registers and by giving the petitioner an opportunity of personal hearing.

6. A reading of the order passed by respondent No. 4 does not suggest that he has undertaken any such exercise. Since the Revision Petition is pending before respondent No. 2, this Court refrains from rendering conclusive opinion on the legality or otherwise of the order, dated 16.09.2014, passed by respondent No. 4. However, this Court finds a strong case in favour of the petitioner for grant of interim order to enable her to continue as the fair price shop dealer till disposal of the Revision Petition by respondent No. 2.

7. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to continue the petitioner as the fair price shop dealer. Respondent No. 2 is also directed to carefully examine the case and pass a speaking order in the appeal (sic. revision) keeping in view the observations made in this order.

8. Subject to the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, W.P.M.P. No. 48946 of 2014 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous.