HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA WRIT PETITION No.786 of 2008 Date: January 23, 2008 Between: Harijana Balanna. … Petitioner. And 1. The District Collector, Anantapur, Anantapur District and 3 others. … Respondents. * * * ORDER: Heard both the counsel. 2. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies had taken notice on 22.01.2008 and requested time to get instructions. The instructions are placed before this Court. It is stated that on the revision petition filed by H. Balanna, Ex-F.P. Shop dealer, Mynapuram village, Guntakal Mandal against the orders of Joint Collector, Anantapur in confirming the orders of Revenue Divisional Officer, Anantapur cancelling the F.P. shop authorization held by Harijana Balanna vide D.Dis. No.K4/ATP/203/2007, dated 10.10.2007, stay was rejected by the District Collector, Anantapur vide Rc.No.K4/ATP/661/2007, dated 18.12.2007 on the operation of orders of Joint Collector, Anantapur. Now consequent on cancellation of F.P. Shop authorization of the above said dealer, one C. Ashok has been appointed as a temporary F.P. Shop dealer for Mynapuram village, Guntakal Mandal, vide Rc.No.D1/CS/1998/07, dated 03.10.2007. 3. The writ petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus declaring action of the first respondent in not passing orders in the stay application filed along with the revision vide in its Revision Case No.K4/ATP/661/2007, dated 28.11.2007, as illegal and consequently set aside the proceedings of the 3rd respondent vide D.Dis.No.D1/CS/1234/2006, dated 02.02.2007, cancelling fair price shop authorization on the alleged fake grounds, as illegal, arbitrary and violation of principles of natural justice and also violation of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and direct the respondents herein to restore the authorization of petitioner’s fair price shop dealership of Mynapuram village of Guntakal Mandal, Anantapur District and pass such other suitable orders. 4. The main grievance of the petitioner is that though the first respondent had entertained the revision of the petitioner, the said application had not been favourably considered. In the light of the instructions placed before this court, this Court is of the consideration opinion that inasmuch as already some temporary arrangement had been made, the same cannot be disturbed at this stage. But however the same would be subject to the orders which may be made in the revision by the first respondent. 5. In the facts and circumstances of the case, let the first respondent dispose of the revision itself within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. 6. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. ____________________ (P.S. NARAYANA, J) Date: January 23, 2008. BSB