IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JULY, TWO THOUSAND NINE ONLY WRIT PETITION No.28660 of 2008 Between: Kanakala Mohini. … Petitioner And: The Collector, Vizianagaram District and two others. … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri C.V.R.Rudra Prasad. Counsel for the Respondents: AGP for Civil Supplies for R1 & R.2. Sri N.Siva Reddy for R.3. This Court made the following: ORDER:- At the interlocutory stage, this Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner was appointed as fair price shop dealer by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Vizianagaram, by order dated 7-11-2002, which was the subject matter of this Court in Writ Petition No.6055 of 2004. While setting aside the petitioner's appointment order, this Court directed the Revenue Divisional Officer, Vizianagram, to consider the case of the petitioner afresh. After remand, the Revenue Divisional Officer reiterated his earlier order appointing the petitioner, which was challenged in an appeal before the Joint Collector unsuccessfully by respondent No.3. However, the revision petition filed by respondent No.3 before respondent No.1 was allowed and the case was remanded to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Vizianagaram, to consider the matter afresh in the light of the observations made by this Court in the previous Writ Petition and Writ Appeal No.207 of 2006. While doing so, respondent No.1 set aside the appointment of the petitioner. At the hearing, Sri C.V.R. Rudra Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner cannot have any objection for remanding the case, but respondent No.1 ought to have continued the petitioner as the fair price shop dealer till such time the Revenue Divisional Officer decided the case afresh. This Court by order dated 29-12-2008 suspended the order of respondent No.1. At the hearing, Sri N.Siva Reddy, learned counsel representing respondent No.3, fairly conceded that the petitioner is continuing as the fair price shop dealer as on today. Since the grievance of the petitioner was confined only to her likely discontinuance on account of the impugned order passed by respondent No.1 and she is admittedly continuing as the fair price shop dealer, this matter need not detain this Court any longer. Accordingly, while upholding the order of respondent No.1 to the extent of remand, the Writ Petition is disposed of by directing the Revenue Divisional Officer, Vizianagaram, to reconsider the claims of the petitioner and respondent No.3 afresh in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made by this Court in order dated 31-3-2006 in Writ Appeal No.207 of 2006 of this Court within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till then, the petitioner shall be allowed to continue as the fair price dealer of the shop in question. --------------------------------------- C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date:28-7-2009 MNR