HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.17437 of 2010 Dated: 26-07-2010 Between: B. Narsimulu. … Petitioner And The Joint Collector, Kurnool & others. … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.17437 of 2010 ORDER: In this writ petition, the petitioner has questioned the order, dated 25th of January 2010, passed by the 2nd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer in Rc.B.31/2008, restoring the authorisation in favour of respondent No.4 under the provisions of the A.P. Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008, a Control Order framed under the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The 4th respondent was the dealer of fair price shop at Dinnadevarapadu village in Kurnool District. When the order suspending his authorisation was confirmed by the appellate authority, he approached this Court by filing W.P.No.18116 of 2009, and this Court, at the stage of admission, by an order, dated 28th of August 2009, directed the respondents to complete the inquiry within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of said order and further directed that, if for any reason, the inquiry is not completed within the time stipulated, the authorisation of respondent No.4 shall be restored. In the impugned order, dated 25th of January 2010, while referring to the orders of this Court in W.P.No.18116 of 2009, the authorisation of respondent No.4 is restored. The aforesaid order is questioned by the petitioner, who is appointed as a temporary dealer when the 4th respondent was suspended, mainly on the ground that purposely, the inquiry was delayed so as to favour the 4th respondent. In the orders in W.P.No.18116 of 2009, there is a specific direction to the effect that in case of failure to complete the inquiry within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of said orders, the authorisation of respondent No.4 should be restored. Accordingly, in compliance to the said orders, the authorisation of respondent No.4 is restored, as the inquiry was not completed within the time stipulated. In that view of the matter, the petitioner, who is only appointed as a temporary dealer as a stop-gap arrangement, cannot question the impugned order, which is issued in compliance to the directions issued by this Court in W.P.No.18116 of 2009. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 26th July 2010 ajr