THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR W.A.No.1935 of 2002 JUDGMENT: ( Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice Sanjay Kumar) The revenue authorities filed this appeal aggrieved by the order dated 16.7.2002 passed by the learned Single Judge allowing writ petition No.10554 of 2002. The writ petitioner, who is arrayed as respondent No.1 in this writ appeal, was appointed as a fair price shop dealer for shop No.4 of Chodavaram, Visakhapatnam District. Aggrieved by her appointment, the 4th respondent in the writ petition, one G.Sreedevi, who is arrayed as respondent No.2 in this writ appeal, filed an appeal before the Joint Collector, Visakhapatnam. By orders dated 17.6.2000, the appellate authority came to the conclusion that the writ petitioner was a resident of Chodavaram and the allegation to the contrary made by 4th respondent was misconceived. However, on the ground that the father-in- law of the petitioner was a retired Deputy Tahsildar of the revenue department and as the Revenue Divisional Officer, while appointing the writ petitioner as a Fair Price Shop Dealer, had not examined the relevant guidelines pertaining to the appointment of relatives of the Revenue and Civil Supplies employees as Fair Price Shop Dealers, the appellate authority remanded the matter to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Visakhapatnam for de novo enquiry. Aggrieved thereby, the writ petitioner preferred a revision before the District Collector, Visakhapatnam and by the order dated 8.5.2002, impugned in the writ petition, the revisional authority dismissed the revision recording the finding that the father-in-law of the writ petitioner had influenced the concerned authority for getting appointment of his daughter-in-law as a Fair Price Shop Dealer. The revisional authority also recorded a finding with regard to the place of birth and residence of the writ petitioner. Aggrieved by the adverse finding recorded by the revisional authority, the writ petitioner approached this Court by way of the subject writ petition, which was allowed by the learned Single Judge. The learned Judge recorded the fact that the nativity of the writ petitioner from Chodavaram Village was no longer in dispute in the light of the orders passed by the appellate and revisional authorities. The learned Judge also held that there were no grounds to come to the conclusion that the father-in- law of the writ petitioner had influenced the authorities for appointing the appellant as a Fair Price Shop Dealer. The learned Judge found that there were no grounds to interfere with the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Visakhapatnam appointing the writ petitioner as a Fair Price Shop Dealer. Learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies, appearing for the appellants/authorities, contended that the writ petitioner was not residing at Chodavaram Village and therefore, she would not be eligible to be appointed as a Fair Price Shop Dealer as per the guidelines. In the light of finding of fact recorded by the appellate authority with regard to nativity of the petitioner from Chodavaram, which was confirmed in revision by the revisional authority, we do not find any grounds to interfere with the order of the learned Judge. Further, it is also relevant to note that the 2nd respondent herein, who had filed the appeal against the appointment of the 1st respondent as a Fair Price Shop Dealer, did not choose to challenge the order passed by the learned Judge in the writ petition. The writ appeal is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _____________________ (T.MEENA KUMARI, J) ___________________ (SANJAY KUMAR,J) rkk dated: 7.7.2009