HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.27231 of 2011 Date: 12.10.2011 Between : Smt. K. Appamma … Petitioner and The Government of A.P., Rep.by its Principal Secretary, Agriculture and Cooperation (Civil Supplies), Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and others. … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.27231 of 2011 ORDER : Heard Sri K.G.K. Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, as well as the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for the respondents. 2. This writ petition is filed questioning the order passed by the 2nd respondent-Collector and District Magistrate, Guntur in Revision Case No.5/2011-S-7, dated 12.7.2011 rejecting to grant stay against the orders of the 3rd respondent-Joint Collector, Guntur, in A.C.D.Dis.No.28/2010-S7, dated 20.6.2011. 3. The petitioner is a Fair Price Shop dealer of Bhimavaram Village, Sattenapalli Mandal, Guntur District. On the ground that she has not supplied the essential commodities to 10 named cardholders, the 4th respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, Guntur District, who is the primary authority, suspended her authorisation pending enquiry in proceedings Rc.No.1392/2010-B, dated 21.7.2010. Being unsuccessful in the appeal preferred against the said orders before the 3rd respondent-appellate authority vide proceedings A.C.D.Dis.No.28/2010-S7, dated 20.6.2011, the petitioner carried the matter by way of revision before the 2nd respondent-revisional authority along with an application seeking stay pending disposal of the said revision. The 2nd respondent- revisional authority while entertaining the said revision, passed the impugned order dated 12.7.2011 rejecting the claim of the petitioner to grant stay. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 4. It is to be noted that soon after suspension of her authorisation, the petitioner has filed W.P.No.18688 of 2010 and this Court while suspending the impugned order of suspension, left it open to the respondents to proceed with the enquiry, by orders in W.P.M.P.No.23636 of 2010 in W.P.No.18688 of 2010, dated 2.8.2010. When the matter is taken up for hearing, it is submitted by the learned Government Pleader that no order of cancellation is passed against the petitioner and the enquiry is still pending. 5. I have perused copies of the orders passed by the primary authority, appellate authority and also the impugned order passed by the revisional authority. 6. A perusal of the order passed by the 4th respondent- primary authority would clearly indicate that the only allegation against the petitioner is with regard to non-supply of essential commodities to 10 named cardholders in the month of June, 2010. A perusal of the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent- revisional authority shows that the petitioner has not supplied the essential commodities to 49 existing cardholders and 10 newly sanctioned cardholders and diverting the essential commodities into black-market for her personal gain. When there was no allegation with regard to non-supply of essential commodities to 49 existing cardholders in the order passed by the primary authority, the revisional authority ought not have taken the same as a ground for passing the impugned order rejecting to grant stay in the revision filed by the petitioner. When the revision arose out of the order dated 21.7.2010 passed by the primary authority, the revisional authority ought to have considered the same within the para-meters of the allegations made in said the order of primary authority. Thus, the revisional authority has enlarged the scope of the revision itself contrary to the allegations in the order of the primary authority. 7. As it is stated that in W.P.No.18688 of 2010, the order suspending the authorisation of the petitioner has already been suspended by this Court and the petitioner is continuing as a Fair Price Shop dealer, and in view of pendency of the revision, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing the 2nd respondent-revisional authority to dispose of the Revision Case No.5/2011-S7 filed by the petitioner as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after giving notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Till final disposal of the said revision by the 2nd respondent-revisional authority, the order passed by the 4th respondent-primary authority in proceedings Rc.No.1392/2010-B, dated 21.7.2010, as confirmed by the the 3rd respondent-appellate authority, in A.C.D.Dis.No.28/2010-S7, dated 20.6.2011, shall remain suspended and the petitioner is entitled to be continued as Fair Price Shop dealer and also for the supply of commodities to her shop. 8. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of, at the admission stage. No order as to costs. _______________________________ JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY 12.10.2011. NOTE: Issue C.C. in three days. (B/O) Msr HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.27231 of 2011 12.10.2011 Msr