L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. ( 1 ) PETITIONER is the dealer of a fair price shop of Shop No. 2 of Gariadinna village and Mandal, Anantapur District. Through proceedings, dated 5-1-2005, the 2nd respondent suspended the authorization of the petitioner. Aggrieved thereby, petitioner filed an appeal before the 1st respondent. He also filed an application for interim orders. Through his order, dated 12-1-2005, the 1st respondent rejected the application for stay. Hence, this writ petition. ( 2 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submits that the order passed by the 2nd respondent suffers from error apparent on the face of the record. He contends that though the petitioner engaged an advocate and submitted explanation on 13-12-2004 after receiving the show-cause notice, the 2nd respondent proceeded as though the explanation was not submitted at all. He contends that though a specific plea was raised before the 1st respondent, in this regard, it was not taken into account. ( 3 ) LEARNED Government Pleader for civil Supplies, on the other hand, submits that the question as to whether the petitioner submitted explanation within time, needs to be considered at the hearing of the appeal and no exception can be taken to the impugned proceedings. ( 4 ) PETITIONER preferred an appeal against the proceedings, dated 5-1-2005, of the 2nd respondent suspending the authorization. The application filed by him for grant of stay was rejected with an observation that there are no compelling grounds . It is true that the 1st respondent is not expected to pass a detailed or reasoned order while considering the superfluous and he need not pass any orders therein. It shall be open to the 2nd respondent to pass fresh orders after taking into account the explanation submitted by the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs.