IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO : 27325 of 2009 Between: S.Jayalakshmi ..... PETITIONER(S) AND The Government of AP, rep. by the District Collector, Nalgonda District and others. .....RESPONDENT(S) THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO : 27325 of 2009 ORDER : According to the petitioner, she is the authorized fair price shop dealer of shop No.1 of Thimmapur village, Arvapally Mandal, Nalgonda District. Based on the report of 4th respondent-Tahsildar, Arvapally Mandla, stating that the petitioner has committed certain irregularities, 3rd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, Suryapet Division, Nalgonda District, conducted a detailed enquiry and ultimately, by his proceedings dated 03-01-2009, cancelled the authorization of the petitioner. Against the said order, the petitioner approached 2nd respondent-Joint Collector, Nalgonda District, and filed an appeal. Due to her misfortune, the said appeal was dismissed by 2nd respondent on 13-11-2009 and the said order was received by her on 10-12-2009. Immediately, she approached the revisional authority i.e. 1st respondent-District Collector, Nalgonda District, and filed a revision on 14-12-2009 and the same is pending consideration. The grievance of the petitioner is that even before receiving copy of the order passed in the appeal, dated 13-11-2009, by her and the revision is kept pending consideration, the 2nd respondent issued another notification, dated 26-11-2009, calling for applications for the purpose of issuance of authorization for the said fair price shop. Hence, the petitioner approached this Court and filed the present writ petition. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies and perused the record. 3. The A.P. State Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008, provides for a revision and it is a right conferred on the aggrieved person to approach the revisional authority and file a revision. Admittedly, the appeal was dismissed on 13-11-2009 and a copy of the order was served on the petitioner only on 10-12-2009 and the revision was filed on 14-12-2009 i.e. within the period of limitation. It is not known as to what will happen in the said revision. Even before passing order in the revision filed by the petitioner, issuance of notification on 26-11-2009, calling for applications from eligible candidates for the purpose of authorization of the same shop, in my considered view, is not necessary. It is only after culmination of the entire proceedings, the appointing authority can issue a notification calling for applications. Apparently, by virtue of the impugned notification, the petitioner’s right of filing said revision has been defeated and pursuant to the said notification, if a qualified candidate is appointed as fair price shop dealer in the place of the petitioner and thereafter, if the revisional authority passes an order in favour of the petitioner, setting aside the order passed by the 3rd respondent, as confirmed by the 2nd respondent, it will lead to unnecessary complications and it is certain that the petitioner’s authorization cannot be restored. 4. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of at the stage of admission. The notification, dated 26-11-2009, shall not be given effect to pending consideration of the revision filed by the petitioner, and the revisional authority i.e. 1st respondent-District Collector, Nalgonda District, is directed to hear the said revision and pass appropriate orders, at the earliest, preferably, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Further, as it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been distributing the scheduled commodities to the cardholders during pendency of the appeal, the said arrangement shall be continued during pendency of the revision, and if any further developments have taken place pursuant to the notification, dated 26- 11-2009, the same shall not be given effect to. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ December 21, 2009 kvr