IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO : 16018 of 2009 Between: N. Santha Kumari W/o Sambasiva Rao r/o Kubadpuram Village, Rajupalem Mandal, Guntur District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Government of Andhra Pradesh rep by Secretary, Civil Supplies Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad 2 District Collector and District Magistrate Guntur, Guntur District 3 Joint Collector and Addl. Distreict Magistrate, Guntur, Guntur Distirct 4 Revenue Divisional Officer, Guntur Guntur District 5 Ms Ramiswetty Vani D/o. Venkaiah Anupalem Village, Rajupalem andal, Guntur District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ of Mandmaus or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction declaring the orders of the 2nd respondent in Revision Case NO. 11/2009-S7, dated 1-8-2009 as illegal, arbitrary without Jurisidiction etc., and grant such other just and consequential relief or reliefs Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.V.V.L.N.SARMA Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO.16018 OF 2009 ORDER: 1 The petitioner herein was the fair price shop dealer of Kubadpuram village, Rajupalem Mandal Guntur District. On certain complaints, her authorization was suspended and thereafter the same was cancelled in the year 2003. Aggrieved thereby the petitioner preferred an appeal and in that appeal the order of cancellation of her authorization was set aside. Pursuant thereto authorization was again issued to the petitioner as fair price shop dealer on 26.6.2009 by the third respondent. However, questioning the said action of issuing authorization to the petitioner again and the orders passed by the appellate authority, the fifth respondent herein approached the Collector and filed a revision before the Collector and the Collector granted stay of all further proceedings by his order dated 1.8.2009. The same is questioned in this Writ Petition. 2 Heard both sides. 3 From a perusal of the order impugned in this Writ Petition it appears that the Collector directed the Revenue Divisional Officer to submit the connected records and further directed the petitioner as well as the fifth respondent to appear before him on 22.8.2009 at 4.00 PM for the purpose of hearing of the revision. 4 Now that the matter is coming up for hearing on 22.8.2009, this court is of the view that no further orders need be passed in this Writ Petition and accordingly this Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the Collector to decide the said revision on 22.8.2009 or on the next day of hearing. No order as to costs. -------------- 19.08.2009 kvsn