IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 13398 of 2008 Between: Nakka Narasimhulu S/o. Late Ramappadu Ravivalasa (V), Cheepurupalli (M), Vizianagaram District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Vizianagaram. 2 The Tahsildar, Cheepurupalli, Vizianagaram District. 3 The Joint Collector, Vizianagaram. .....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 any writ, order or direction particularly a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent to continue the petitioner as F.P.Shop Dealer as it is by settting aside the impugned proceedings Rc.No.1930/2008 D, dt. 07.06.2008 of the 1st respondent herein and pass such other releif Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.B.M.PATRO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 13398 of 2008 ORAL ORDER: The order dated 07-06-2008 of the 1st respondent cancelling the authorization granted to the petitioner to run the Fair Price Shop, Ravivalasa village, Cheepurupalli mandal, Vizianagaram District, is challenged in the writ petition. The order does not contain any reasons for the conclusion that the petitioner violated the conditions of authorization under the A.P. Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2001. In recognition of this and on advice from the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies, the 1st respondent has passed an order dated 04-07-2008 withdrawing the impugned order with a view to pass a fresh order in accordance with law. The copy of the 1st respondent’s order dated 04-07-2008 bearing reference in Rc.No. 1930/2004/D has been placed for perusal of this Court by the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. In view of the orders passed by the 1st respondent, the grievance of the petitioner does not subsist. If the petitioner’s authorization is neither cancelled nor suspended, it is needless to record that the respondents are obligated to supply essential commodities to him. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed as ‘infructuous’. No costs. ____________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J Dated: 11-07-2008 Pvks/*