THE HON’BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI Writ Petition No.19950 of 2005 16-11-2005 Between: Varada Daliguruvulu, S/o late Paraiah, R/o Thettangi village, Veeraghattam Mandal, Srikakulam District. ... PETITONER AND The Collector, Srikakulam District, Srikakulam and others. .....RESPONDENTS THE HON’BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI Writ Petition No.19950 of 2005 ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. The writ petitioner is the authorized dealer of the fair price shop of Thettangi village. His authorisation has been suspended by the third respondent, Revenue Divisional Officer, by an order dated 31.08.2004, pending enquiry into certain alleged irregularities in distribution of essential commodities. Aggrieved by the same, he preferred an appeal before the second respondent, Joint Collector, which was allowed by an order, dated 02.07.2005. However, the fourth respondent, who is the temporary dealer, preferred a revision petition before the first respondent, District Collector, assailing the order of the Joint Collector, dated 02.07.2005. The District Collector having entertained the said revision petition, by an order, dated 04.08.2005, suspended the order of the Joint Collector, dated 02.07.2005. The said order, dated 04.08.2005, is under challenge in this writ petition. This Court, while directing Rule nisi, by an order, dated 09.09.2005, granted interim directions thereby permitting the petitioner to continue as dealer of the fair price shop in question. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that by virtue of the interim orders passed by this Court, the petitioner is continuing as fair price dealer as on today. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that during the pendency of the writ petition, the first respondent, District Collector, has disposed of the revision petition by an order, dated 29.10.2005, directing the Revenue Divisional Officer to conduct enquiry initiated against the writ petitioner and in the meantime, to implement the order of the Joint Collector, dated 02.07.2005. In view of the final orders passed by the first respondent in the revision petition, I am of the opinion that it is not necessary for this Court to keep the writ petition pending any more and no adjudication is necessary on merits. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the third respondent, Revenue Divisional Officer, to implement the order of the first respondent, dated 29.10.2005, and take the necessary action in accordance with law. No costs. _______________ 16.11.2005 VGB