IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.21003 of 2010 Between: Gommadi Venkata Koteshwaramma. ..... Petitioner AND The Joint Collector, Guntur Distirct, Guntur & others. .....Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : None Counsel for respondents 1-3&5: AGP for Civil Supplies Counsel for respondent No.4: Sri K. Srinivas The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.21003 of 2010 ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside order dated 05.08.2010 of respondent No.2, whereby he has restored the fair price shop authorization of respondent No.4. At the hearing, there is no representation for the petitioner. I have heard the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and 5 and Sri K. Srinivas learned counsel representing respondent No.4. Consequent on cancellation of fair price shop authorization of respondent No.4, the petitioner was appointed as a temporary dealer. The appeal filed by respondent No.4 against the order of cancellation was allowed by respondent No.1 vide his order dated 19.12.2006, subject to the condition that respondent No.4 shall pay the fine amount. As there was delay in payment of the fine amount, respondent No.4 has approached respondent No.2 with a miscellaneous application, which was allowed by order dated 05.08.2010. Questioning the said order, the petitioner filed the present writ petition while filing a revision petition before respondent No.5 against order dated 19.12.2006 by which respondent No.2 has set aside the order of cancellation of authorization of respondent No.4. At the hearing, the learned counsel for respondent No.4 fairly conceded that the petitioner has been continuing as fair price shop dealer for more than four years from the date of cancellation of his client’s authorization. Inasmuch as the revision petition is pending before respondent No.5 and the petitioner is continuing as the fair price shop dealer, it is not appropriate to disturb the present arrangement. Interests of justice would be served if respondent No.5 is directed to dispose of the revision petition filed by the petitioner expeditiously. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction to respondent No.5 to dispose of the revision petition filed by the petitioner, if not already done, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after hearing the petitioner and respondent No.4. Respondent No.4 is entitled to raise all legally permissible pleas including the maintainability of the revision in view of long delay. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.26730 of 2010 and WVMP.No.4408 of 2010 are disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 03.11.2010 ES