THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.16166 of 2010 ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for the respondents. Petitioner is an authorized fair price shop dealer in Pedda Marriveedu Village, Gonegandla Mandal, Kurnool District. Such authorisation, conditions to run the fair price shop and disciplinary actions are governed by the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh State Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008 (for short ‘the Control Order’). On the ground that the petitioner has not supplied stocks to the cardholders, the third respondent - Revenue Divisional Officer, Adoni, Kurnool, by recording a finding that the explanation offered by him is not convincing, passed order, dated 22.01.2010 in Rc.M.940/2009 cancelling his authorisation to run the fair price shop. As against the said order, the petitioner preferred appeal before the second respondent - Joint Collector, Civil Supplies, Kurnool, who in turn, by his order, dated 30.06.2010, rejected the same. Further, the revision petition was filed by the petitioner on 05.07.2010 before the first respondent - District Collector, Kurnool, as provided under Clause 21 of the Control Order, and the same is pending. In this case, the specific ground raised by the petitioner is that the appellate authority exceeded the scope of the appeal and passed order, dated 30.06.2010 confirming the order, dated 22.01.2010 passed by the third respondent cancelling his fair price shop authorisation. I have perused the order of the appellate authority. It indicates that the appellate authority introduced new grounds while confirming the order of the third respondent. In any event, under Clause 21 of the Control Order, the petitioner has already availed the remedy of revision and the same is pending consideration. In view of pendency of revision before the first respondent, it is not desirable to record any finding on merits, but in view of the specific ground raised by the petitioner, I deem it appropriate to direct the first respondent - revisional authority to dispose of the revision filed by the petitioner as expeditiously as possible. Subject to the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. However, it is made clear that the order, dated 22.01.2010 passed by the third respondent shall remain suspended till disposal of the revision petition by the first respondent. No order as to costs. ______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 16th JULY, 2010. Note: issue operative portion by ‘wire’ at party’s costs. kvni