THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.11032 of 2010 ORDER: In this writ petition, petitioner questions the action of the first respondent in appointing the third respondent as a fair price shop dealer on temporary basis, vide order, dated 19.04.2010, and seeks to declare the same as illegal. One P.Mahesh, Son of Ramachandrappa, was appointed as a fair price shop dealer for distribution of essential commodities in Lathavaram Village, Uravakonda Mandal, Anantapur District. On the ground that he was involved in a case in Crime No.175 of 2009 for the alleged offences under Sections 323, 355, 354 and 506 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and Section 3(i)(xi) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, his fair price shop authorisation was suspended by the second respondent – Tahsildar, Uravakonda Mandal, vide order, dated 15.03.2010, passed in proceedings bearing Rc.No.(B)175/2009. Consequent to such suspension, the first respondent - Revenue Divisional Officer, Anantapur, has invited applications for appointment as a fair price shop dealer on temporary basis. There were seven applicants before the first respondent seeking such appointment. The first respondent by order, dated 19.04.2010, passed in proceedings bearing D.Dis.No.D1- CS/838/2010, appointed the third respondent as fair price shop dealer on temporary basis. It is the case of the petitioner that the third respondent is none other than the sister of the said P.Mahesh, whose authorisation was suspended earlier, as such, she should not have been appointed. It is his further case that the third respondent was a student at the time of passing the impugned order as such her appointment is illegal. When the matter is taken up, it is brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel appearing for the third respondent that questioning the appointment of the third respondent as fair price shop dealer on temporary basis, two other applicants, by names, V.Ravi Kumar and Smt. B.Anantha Laxmi, whose candidature was not considered for appointment as a fair price shop dealer on temporary basis, filed an appeal before the Joint Collector and Additional District Magistrate, Anantapur. The learned counsel placed before this Court a copy of the order, dated 15.05.2010, passed in proceedings bearing Rc.No.K3/390/2010, in which, the appellate authority granted interim order staying the operation of the order, dated 19.04.2010, passed by the first respondent appointing the third respondent as fair price shop dealer on temporary basis. On the appeal filed by the third party applicants, already the matter is seized up before the Joint Collector, who also passed interim order staying the operation of the order, dated 19.04.2010, which is impugned in the present writ petition. In view of pendency of the appeal filed by the third parties before the Joint Collector and taking into account the interim order passed therein by such authority, there is no reason to examine the matter independently by this Court at this point of time. Even with regard to the objections, the petitioner can as well raise the same before the Joint Collector by filing appropriate application in the pending appeal preferred by the third party applicants namely, Sri V.Ravi Kumar and Smt. B.Ananta Laxmi. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is dismissed, keeping open to the petitioner to move the appellate authority by filing appropriate application questioning the appointment of the third respondent as fair price shop dealer on temporary basis, which is also the subject matter of appeal before the Joint Collector. If any such application is filed, I am sure, the appellate authority will look into the objections raised by the petitioner with regard to appointment of the third respondent as fair price shop dealer on temporary basis. No order as to costs. ________________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 4th OCTOBER, 2010. kvni