IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 8155 of 2008 Between: Boinapalli Venkateswarlu S/o ramaiah R/o Nagambotlapalem Village, Tallur Mandal, Prakasam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District collector, Ongole, Prakasam District. 2 The Joint Collector, Ongole, Prakasam District. 3 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kandukur, Prakasam district. 4 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Tallur Mandal, Prakasam District 5 The Tahsildar Tallur Mandal, Prakasam District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.RAJNI KANTH JWALA Counsel for the Respondents:AGP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to set aside proceedings, dated 09.01.2008 of respondent No.2 whereby he dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner against order, dated 16.05.2007 passed by respondent No.3 cancelling the petitioner’s fair price shop authorization. This case has a long drawn history, which need not be narrated herein in view of pendency of revision petition filed by the petitioner before respondent No.1. The question whether the order of cancellation of petitioner’s fair price shop authorization by respondent No.3 and confirmed by respondent No.2 is legal and valid is required to be adjudicated by respondent No.1 in the revision filed by the petitioner. At this stage, the grievance of the petitioner is that though he filed revision petition along with an application for stay on 19.02.2008 before respondent No.1, he has not disposed of the application for stay. A perusal of the averments contained in the affidavit and the record shows that all through the litigation during the last more than three years, the petitioner is continuing as fair price shop dealer on the strength of the orders passed by this Court in various writ petitions. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies, I am of the view that interests of justice would be met if respondent No.1 is directed to dispose of the revision petition filed by the petitioner within a period of four (4) weeks’ from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Since the petitioner has been continuing as fair price shop dealer during the pendency of the proceedings initiated against him for cancellation of fair price shop authorization, it is just and proper if he is permitted to continue as fair price shop dealer till the disposal of the revision by respondent No.1. In this view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of without going into the merits of the case subject to the above directions. As a sequel to disposal of main petition, WPMP.No.10762 of 2008 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 16th APRIL, 2008 Note: issue c.c. in three(3) days. B/o kvni