IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO : 18096 of 2009 Between: V.Giridhar Reddy, . .Petitioner And The District Collector, Chittoor District and others. .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO.18096 OF 2009 ORDER: The petitioner filed this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the 1st respondent in not granting interim relief pending disposal of the revision, presented against the order dated 26.10.2008 in D.Dis.C1/786/2008 as illegal, unjust and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents not to enforce the proceedings dated 18.07.2008 made in D.Dis.B/1578/08 of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chittoor. Brief facts are that the 3rd respondent issued a notification in Roc.B/1578/08 dated 16.06.2008 calling for applications from eligible candidates to appoint as fair price shop dealer of Kallurupalle village of Bangarupalyam Mandal, Chittoor District. The petitioner, the 4th respondent and others submitted their applications, but, however, the 3rd respondent appointed the 4th respondent as dealer to the said fair price shop vide order dated 18.07.2008 in D.Dis.B/1578/08. Alleging that the 4th respondent is not qualified as he studied 10th class, but did not pass 10th class, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the 2nd respondent-Joint Collector. The 2nd respondent while entertaining the said appeal, stayed the operation of the order dated 18.07.2008 and thereafter the said appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed on 26.10.2008 in D.Dis.C1/786/2008. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed a revision before the 1st respondent-District Collector on 24.08.2009 and as the 1st respondent refused to pass an interim order, he approached this Court and filed the present writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Assistant Government Pleader for civil supplies. It may not be necessary for this Court to go into the facts contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner i.e., with regard to the qualification. Now, that the revision is pending before the 2nd respondent and the 2nd respondent-Joint Collector is hereby directed to hear the revision filed by the petitioner and dispose it of at the earliest, preferably, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is needless to observe that while disposing of the said revision, the 2nd respondent shall hear the 4th respondent by affording an opportunity to her. As the impugned order is dated 26.10.2008, it is not known as to who is distributing the commodities, if the 4th respondent is distributing the schedule commodities and she may be permitted to distribute the same during the pendency of the revision. But, however, if she is not distributing the schedule commodities, the position prevailing during the pendency of the appeal shall be continued during the pendency of the revision. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of at the stage of admission. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________________ (GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J) August 28, 2009 KSH