IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.15377 of 2009 Between: Kavala Ramanna S/o.Narayana Murthy R/o.Door No.34-3-2-16, Muchimilli village Ramachandrapuram Mandal, East Godavari District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, East Godavari District at kakinada 2 The Joint Collector, East Godavari District at Kakinada 3 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Rajahmundry East Godavari District 4 The Tahsildar, Ramachandrapuram Mandal East Godavari District .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.K.VENKATESH Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following : ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to direct respondent Nos.3 and 4 to supply essential commodities to Fair Price Shop No.4 of Muchimilli Village, Ramachandrapuram Mandal, East Godavari District, pending disposal of revision before respondent No.1. The authorization of the petitioner in respect of the above-mentioned Fair Price Shop was cancelled by proceedings, dated 19-01-2009, of respondent No.3. The said order was confirmed by respondent No.2, in appeal filed by the petitioner, by Order, dated 27-06-2009. The petitioner is stated to have filed revision petition along with an interlocutory application for stay before respondent No.1 against the above-mentioned order on 27- 07-2009. The petitioner pleaded that the said application for stay has not been disposed of. The facts referred to above reveal that the petitioner’s application for stay said to have been filed just about three days back is pending before respondent No.1. Therefore, there is no justifiable reason for the petitioner to file the present Writ Petition claiming the relief of a direction to respondent Nos.3 and 4 to supply essential commodities pending the revision petition before respondent No.1. Undoubtedly, respondent No.1 is vested with the power to consider the application for stay and also to pass appropriate interim directions pending the revision petition. Therefore, the present Writ Petition is misconceived and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. However, respondent No.1 is directed to dispose of the petitioner’s application for stay stated to have been filed by him in the revision petition, within a period of three days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.20191 of 2009 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ___________________________ (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) 30th July, 2009 lur