ORDER : Though the matter is listed for admission, with the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is taken up for final disposal. 2. The petitioner is a Society authorized to distribute the food grains and kerosene in Mulasavalagi village, Sindagi taluk, Vijaypur district by the virtue of authorization issued by respondent No.2. 3. Facts relevant for adjudication of the present case is, the petitioner was issued notice calling upon to show cause/Annexure-D by respondent No.2/Deputy Commissioner why its authorization shall not be cancelled in view of certain misconduct committed by it which was listed in the notice. On the very same day, vide its order at Annexure-E, suspended the authorization of the petitioner in respect of distribution of food grains and kerosene and the concerned Tahasildar was directed to make alternative arrangement for the cardholders. The petitioner challenged the said order before the Appellate Authority/the Director and Commissioner of Food and Civil Supplies and the said matter is pending in Appeal No.135/2015-16. Pending consideration of the appeal, interim order was passed thereby suspending the order of the Deputy Commissioner. The interim order granted on 07.04.2012 for a period of three months was extended up to 13.10.2016. 4. Smt. Ratna N. Shivayogimath, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the interim order granted earlier has not been extended since the office of respondent No.1 was vacant and there was no sitting. In that view of the matter, cardholders of Mulasavalagi village are put to great inconvenience for want of alternative arrangement made by the concerned Tahsildar. 5. Sri Syed Habeeb, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents would submit that though in the interim period, the office of respondent No.1 fell vacant subsequently new officer is posted as the Director and Commissioner of Food and Civil Supplies and the Appellate Authority is functioning. Since, the appeal is pending it is for the petitioner to work out for redressal of its grievance before the Appellate Authority. In the light of the above, it is required that the petitioner shall move respondent No.1 to redress its grievance. Since, the appeal is pending it is for the petitioner to work out for redressal of its grievance before the Appellate Authority. In the light of the above, it is required that the petitioner shall move respondent No.1 to redress its grievance. However, interim order having not been expressly recalled or vacated, respondent No.1 shall consider the request of the petitioner, if an application is moved for extension of interim order, as expeditiously as possible, keeping in view the inconvenience encountered by the villagers of Mulasavalagi, within an outer limit of three weeks from the date of communication of this order. With this observation, petition stands disposed of.