The Hon’ble Sri Justice R.Subhash Reddy Writ Petition No.19752 of 2010 Order: In this Writ Petition, the petitioner complains about the inaction on the part of respondent No.1-District Collector, Ongole, Prakasam District, in not considering the revision petition filed by him. The brief facts of the case are as under: The petitioner is an authorized dealer of fair price shop No.29 of Sudivaripalem Village, Inkollu Mandal, Prakasam District and is governed by the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008 (for short ‘the Control Order’), which is framed under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. While so, proceedings for cancellation of the petitioner’s authorization were initiated by respondent No.3 by issuing showcause notice, dated 13-10-2009, mainly on three grounds viz., (1) that the petitioner has been running the above-mentioned fair price shop by allowing benami person viz., Gorantla Venkata Subba Rao; (2) that he is opening the fair price shop only for 5 or 6 days in a month and is not distributing the essential commodities and; (3) that he is distributing the essential commodities with less weighment and higher rates and thereby, violated Clause 7(1) of the Control Order. Petitioner submitted his explanation to the said showcause notice on 16-10-2009, but without considering the same, respondent No.3- primary authority passed order, dated 11- 05-2010, cancelling his authorization in respect of the above-mentioned fair price shop. As against the same, the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the Collector (Civil Supplies), Ongole, Prakasam District, who has dismissed the same vide order, dated 30th June, 2010. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed a revision petition together with interlocutory petition before respondent No.1- District Collector, Prakasam District, on 19-07-2010, but no order has yet been passed thereon. Hence, the petitioner filed this Writ Petition questioning the inaction of respondent No.1- revisional authority in granting an interim order. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that respondent No.3- primary authority has not considered the petitioner’s explanation and passed the impugned order of cancellation; that Sri Gorantla Venkata Subba Rao is related to the petitioner and that the petitioner has taken his assistance for the purpose of running the shop and as such, he cannot be construed as benami person. It is further submitted that although no findings were recorded by respondent No.3- primary authority with regard to the other charges leveled against the petitioner, the appellate authority has confirmed the order of cancellation passed by respondent No.3. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies representing the respondents. Perused the material available on record. Even according to the petitioner, a statutory revision filed by him is pending before respondent No.1- District Collector. In view of the same, it is not desirable to record any findings on merits at this stage. It is brought to the notice of the Court that the petitioner was permitted to run the fair price shop in question during the pendency of the appeal. Therefore, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the Writ Petition directing respondent No.1- revisional authority to dispose of the revision petition itself as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy this order. Till disposal of the said revision petition, the respondents are directed to supply the essential commodities to the petitioner’s fair price shop and permit the petitioner to distribute the same in terms of the authorization granted in his favour. Subject to the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ R.Subhash Reddy, J Date: 11th August, 2010 Note: Furnish CC in three days. (B/o) lur