IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 13636 of 2008 Between: V.Sudhakar S/o.Ramana Bethapalli village, Gooty ,Ananthapur District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, Ananthapur District 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Ananthapur Ananthapur District 3 The Mandal Revenue officer, Gooty,Ananthapur District .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue awrit or order more particualrlyone in thenature of writ of mandmaus declaring the impugned proceedings Rc.No.K3/ATP/837/2008 dated 28.5.2008 by the respondent No.1 is illegal, arbitrary,unconstitutional being violative of ARticles,14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to continue the petitioner as F.P.Shop Dealer of Shop No.36 Bethapalli village,Gooty Mandal,Ananthapur District and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.JAGADISH CHANDRA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following, at the stage of admission : ORAL ORDER: The petitioner’s authorization as a Fair Price Shop dealer of Bethapalli Village, Gooty Mandal, Ananthapur District was cancelled by the order bearing Reference No. D.Dis.D1-CS/403/2006 dated 23.12.2006 of the 2nd respondent. Thereagainst, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Joint Collector and District Magistrate, Ananthapur. The appeal was rejected by the Joint Collector by an order 28.4.2008. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred a revision to the 1st respondent-the District Collector and along therewith, filed an application for interim suspension of the order of cancellation of authorization. The application for interim relief was rejected by the 1st respondent by the impugned order dated 28.5.2008. The revision is however pending with the 1st respondent. The petitioner assails the order of the 1st respondent rejecting grant of interim relief in the revision. As grant of interim relief is a discretionary jurisdiction, this Court is not inclined to interfere as no perversity is established. In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission, after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. The 1st respondent may expeditiously dispose of the revision, preferably within a period of 6 (six) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. GODA RAGHURAM, J Date: 27.6.2008 cvm