THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION NO.28750 OF 2010 DT.19.11.2010 Between: G.Someswara Rao …………….Petitioner Vs. The Joint Collector, Krishna District and two others …….Respondents O R D E R: The writ petitioner, who is an unsuccessful applicant for appointment as fair price shop dealer in respect of a new shop in Marlapalem Village, Chatrai Mandal, Krishna District, has filed this writ petition seeking to declare the action of respondent No.1-Joint Collector, Krishna District in not considering his request for stay in the appeal said to have been filed by him against the order of appointment of the third respondent as illegal. The second respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, Nuzvid issued a notification, dated 18.09.2010 for appointment of dealer in respect of the aforesaid fair price shop. The petitioner and the third respondent responded to the said notification and the second respondent after considering the applications, including the application filed by the third respondent, passed R.C.No.267 of 2008, dated 12.10.2010 appointing the third respondent as dealer. The petitioner has challenged the said order by filing an appeal before the first respondent-Joint Collector, Krishna District and it appears he has also field a petition to stay the operation of the said order. Alleging that the first respondent has not passed any orders on the said application, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for both sides. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the selection of the third respondent is not legal and the petitioner being a physically handicapped person, ought to have been selected in preference to the third respondent herein. He further submits that the first respondent is not justified in keeping the stay application pending. I am not inclined to express any opinion on the merits of the case. The petitioner can as well urge all the grounds available to him in the statutory appeal said to have been filed. Be that as it may, the petitioner being an unsuccessful applicant, cannot seek to prevent the third respondent in whose favour the authorisation is subsisting, from distributing the commodities. The petitioner is therefore not entitled to any relief in the writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. The first respondent is, however, directed to dispose of the appeal said to have been filed by the petitioner against the orders of the second respondent as early as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order in accordance with law. ________________ NOUSHAD ALI J., Dt.19.11.2010 tjs