THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.24951 of 2011 Date: 06.09.2011 Between: Devakivada Venkateswara Rao … Petitioner and The District Collector, Srikakulam District and others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.24951 of 2011 ORDER : Heard Sri A. Jagannatha Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, as well as the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for the respondents. 2. This writ petition is filed challenging the order passed by the 1st respondent-District Collector, Srikakulam District, in proceedings SR (R).No.2/2011 S2, dated 22.8.2011 staying operation of the order passed by the 2nd respondent-Joint Collector, Srikakulam District, in D.Dis.No.236/2011 S2, dated 1.7.2011 (SRA.No.16/2009) setting aside the order passed by the 3rd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, Palakonda, Srikakulam District, in D.Dis.No.1091/2008 B, dated 31.7.2009, cancelling the authorisation of the petitioner to run the Fair Price Shop, as arbitrary and illegal and consequently sought a direction to the official respondents to permit him to continue as Fair Price Shop dealer. 3. At the outset, this writ petition not maintainable as the same is filed even without approaching the 1st respondent seeking to vacate the order dated 22.8.2011. 4. The brief facts are that the petitioner is a Fair Price Shop dealer. As the petitioner was found to have indulged in diverting the essential commodities to the black market, his authorisation was cancelled by the 3rd respondent by order dated 31.7.2009. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the 2nd respondent, who by order dated 1.7.2011 set aside the order passed by the 3rd respondent on the ground that the petitioner’s shop was inspected while he was on leave, that new charges were mentioned in the show cause notice and the Revenue Divisional Officer has not discussed the charges and explanation of finding in the order of cancellation. Aggrieved by the said order, respondent Nos.5 and 6, who are said to be the cardholders attached to the shop of the petitioner, have filed a revision petition before the 1st respondent, and the 1st respondent on a consideration of prima-facie case, has granted stay by order dated 22.8.2011. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition for the aforesaid relief. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the allegations made against the petitioner are not correct and that the persons, whose names are enumerated in the impugned order, including respondent Nos.5 and 6 herein, are not the cardholders attached to the shop of the petitioner. It is, therefore, contended that the impugned order granting stay is unsustainable. 6. I am not inclined to go into the disputed question of fact whether respondent Nos.5 and 6 and the persons, whose names are enumerated in the impugned order, are the cardholders attached to the petitioner’s shop. These facts are to be pleaded and established before the 1st respondent, who is seized of the matter. Admittedly, the petitioner has not approached the 1st respondent by filing an application seeking vacation of the stay order dated 22.8.2011. 7. For the foregoing reasons, I am not inclined to entertain the writ petition. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed at the admission stage. No order as to costs. ________________________ JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI 06.09.2011. Msr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.24951 of 2011 06.09.2011 (Msr)