l l lTHE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA l lWRIT PETITION No.28382 of 2009 DATE:24.12.2009 Between: L. Subbulu ... Petitioner and The District Collector, Ongole, Prakasam District and others ... Respondents l l l l THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA l lWRIT PETITION No.28382 of 2009 l ORDER: According to the petitioner, she is the fair price shop dealer of Vasepallipadu Village, Tangutur Mandal, Prakasam District, and has been distributing the essential commodities to the cardholders without any complaint, for the last 22 years. While so, the 3rd respondent cancelled her authorisation by an order datted 21.04.2009 alleging certain irregularities, basing on a false and frivolous report of the 4th respondent. As against the said order, she filed a writ petition before this Court and this Court was pleased to set aside the said order and directed the 3rd respondent to pass orders afresh, after affording her an opportunity of personal hearing. In pursuance thereof, the 3rd respondent passed a well reasoned order in proceedings Rc.No.1509/G/2007 dated 29.09.2009 restoring her authorisation. Challenging the said order, one Nalamalapu Anjamma and other cardholders of Vasepallipadu Village filed an appeal before the 2nd respondent, who, without considering the facts and circumstances of the case, by an order in proceedings Rc.CS2/3234/2009 dated 30.11.2009, disposed of the appeal setting aside the order of the 3rd respondent. Questioning the said order, she filed a revision before the 1st respondent on 21.12.2009 along with a stay petition seeking stay of operation of the order of the 2nd respondent. But however, the 1st respondent has not passed any order either in the appeal or on the stay petition, so far. Being aggrieved by the same, she filed the present writ petition. · 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. · 43. The main submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that though the petitioner filed a statutory revision before the 1st respondent against the order of the 2nd respondent, the 1st respondent has not passed any order thereon till date. It is his further submission that the 2nd respondent without any application of mind and without appreciating the material available on record, passed the order dated 30.11.2009 setting aside the order passed by the 3rd respondent dated 29.09.2009. Therefore, he prays to allow this writ petition. · 54. As seen from the record, it is clear that the petitioner has availed the alternative remedies by way of filing an appeal before the 2nd respondent, and thereafter, a revision before the 1st respondent. In the light of the same and having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the view that this writ petition can be disposed of with a direction to the 1st respondent to decide the revision filed by the petitioner. · 65. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to dispose of the revision filed by the petitioner within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Pending consideration of the revision, the respondent authorities are hereby directed to continue the petitioner as fair price shop dealer of Vasepallipadu Village, Tangutur Mandal, Prakasam District, and permit her to distribute the essential commodities to the cardholders. It is needless to observe that the petitioner shall be heard before passing final orders in the revision filed by her. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ lGOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J 24th December, 2009 lCBS THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·WRIT PETITION No.28382 of 2009 ·(Disposed of) 24th December, 2009 l lCBS l