IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION No.14323 of 2008 Between: Pittam Seshadri Reddy, S/o. Rami Reddy, R/o. Norava Post & Village, Giddaluru Mandal, Prakasam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. By its Secretary, Civil Supplies Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The District Collector, Prakasam District at Ongole. 3 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Markapur, Prakasam District. 4 The Tahsildar, Giddaluru Mandal, Prakasam District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Mandamus under Article 226 constitution of India, declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in not disposing of the Revision filed by the Petitioner against the Proceedings No. RC.CS2/2/472/2008, dt. 26-05-2008 is wholly illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to dispose of the Revision No. RP/CS2/22/91/2008 forthwith. Counsel for the Petitioner: SMT.C.VANI REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM Writ Petition No.14323 of 2008 ORAL ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. Petitioner’s authorization for the fair price shop in Narava village, Giddaluru Mandal, Prakasam District, was cancelled by the order of the 3rd respondent dated 12.02.2008. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner unsuccessfully filed an appeal to the Joint Collector, by the order dated 26.05.2008. Thereupon, the petitioner preferred a revision to the 2nd respondent on 07.06.2008, and is before this Court complaining that the 2nd respondent has not yet disposed of the appeal. Petitioner has not made out any case to justify the conclusion that the 2nd respondent has, without cause, delayed the determination of the revision filed on 07.06.2008. The 2nd respondent is an authority, who is vested with multifarious functions and is the head of the district administration. He is the best judge to prioritize his several functions, including the quasi-judicial functions of considering the appeal under the A.P.Public Distribution System. In the circumstances, no case is made out. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. It is needless to observe that the 2nd respondent shall dispose of the appeal expeditiously. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ (Justice Goda Raghuram) 4th July 2008 sh