THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.23748 of 2011 Date: 24.08.2011 Between: Smt. M. Ramalakshmi … Petitioner and The District Collector, Ongole, Prakasam District and others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.23748 of 2011 ORDER : Heard Sri Rajanikanth Jwala, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, as well as the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for the respondents. Having regard to the limited relief sought for by the learned counsel at the hearing to direct the 1st respondent to dispose of the revision petition said to have been filed by the petitioner within a time frame, with the consent of both the counsel the writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage. 2. The petitioner is a Fair Price Shop dealer of Lakkavaram Village, Talluru Mandal, Prakasam District. Basing on the report dated 23.4.2010 submitted by the Assistant Supply Officer, Kandukur, Prakasam District, alleging certain irregularities, the 3rd respondent - Sub-Collector, Kandukur Division, Prakasam District, initiated action under the provisions of A.P. State Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008 and after following the due procedure cancelled the authorisation of the petitioner in proceedings RCF/651/2010, dated 20.9.2010. On an appeal preferred by the petitioner against the said order, the 2nd respondent-Joint Collector (Civil Supplies Wing), Ongole, Prakasam District, vide proceedings Rc.CS2/3435/2010, dated 14.12.2010 dismissed the said appeal confirming the orders of the 3rd respondent. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed a revision petition before the 1st respondent-District Collector, Ongole, Prakasam District on 14.2.2011. The grievance of the petitioner is that even though considerable time has elapsed, the 1st respondent has not passed any orders on the said revision petition. Therefore, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 3. A perusal of the aforesaid facts evidently shows that being unsuccessful in the appeal filed before the 2nd respondent- appellate authority against the orders of the 3r d respondent- primary authority cancelling the authorisation, the petitioner filed a revision before the 1st respondent-revisional authority on 14.2.2011. Even though considerable time has elapsed, the 1st respondent has not passed any orders on the said revision. In matters of this nature, the Statutory authorities are expected to pass appropriate orders expeditiously within a time frame. In the instant case, even though more than six months has elapsed, the 1st respondent has not passed any orders on the said revision and there does not appear to be any valid reason for keeping the matter pending for such a long time. 4. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the limited relief sought for during the course of hearing, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to dispose of the revision petition filed by the petitioner against the order dated 14.12.2010 of the 2nd respondent and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs. ________________________ JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI 24.08.2011. NOTE:- Issue C.C. in two days. (B/O) Msr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.23748 of 2011 24.08.2011 (Msr)