THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.21868 of 2010 ORDER: In this writ petition, petitioner seeks a mandamus declaring the action of the first respondent – District Collector, Kurnool, in not passing any orders in the revision petition filed by him. The petitioner was a dealer of fair price shop situated at S.Lingamdinne Village, Gonegandla Mandal, Kurnool District. On the ground that he was involved in criminal cases, his fair price shop authorization was cancelled by the third respondent - Revenue Divisional Officer, Adoni, vide order bearing Rc.M.1252/2006, dated 29.09.2009. As against the same, he preferred appeal before the second respondent - Joint Collector, Kurnool, who, vide his order bearing Rc.No.CS3/130/2010, dated 14.07.2010, dismissed the same confirming the order of the third respondent. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that challenging the aforesaid orders, the petitioner carried the matter by way of revision, as provided in the Andhra Pradesh State Public Distribution System Control Order, 2008 itself, before the first respondent on 21.07.2010. It is the grievance of the petitioner that in spite of filing an application in the revision petition for interim orders, the revisional authority has not taken up either the interim application or the revision petition for hearing. It is also submitted that there is no basis for cancelling the authorization granted to the petitioner as much as he was already acquitted in both the criminal cases, which were registered against him. On instructions, it is submitted by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents that the revision preferred by the petitioner on 21.07.2010 is still pending consideration before the revisional authority. In view of pendency of revision preferred by the petitioner before the first respondent, it is not desirable to record any finding on the merits of the matter. As it is stated that the revision preferred by the petitioner on 21.07.2010 is pending consideration before the first respondent and as much as it is the case of the petitioner that in both the criminal cases, he was already acquitted by the competent criminal Courts, I deem it appropriate to direct the revisional authority to dispose of the revision preferred by the petitioner within a period of six (6) weeks from today by giving him an opportunity of hearing. There shall be a further direction to the respondents that till appropriate final orders are passed by the revisional authority in the revision preferred by the petitioner, they shall not take any further steps to appoint any other permanent dealer in the place of the petitioner and the arrangement existing as on today shall be continued. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 2nd SEPTEMBER, 2010. Note: issue c.c. in one week. kvni