HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI ANIL R. DAVE AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA W.A. No.102 of 2008 Date:11-2-2008 Between: Addanki Kanchi Varada Raju. … Appellant. and The District Collector, Krishna, Machilipatnam and others. … Respondents. :JUDGMENT: Gopala Krishna Tamada, J. This appeal by the appellant-writ petitioner has been directed against the order passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.20934 of 2007 dated 29.1.2008. The issue involved in the writ petition is as regards the appointment of Fair Price Shop dealership in respect of shop No.18, Pallepalem Village, Kruthivennu Mandal of Krishna District. It appears that the appointment of the petitioner as Fair Price Shop Dealer in relation to the said Village has been challenged by way of appeal by Respondent No.4 and the same is pending adjudication before the 2nd respondent – Joint Collector, Krishna. The Writ Petition has been filed for a direction to the 2nd respondent District Collector to withdraw the appeal pending on the file of 2nd respondent on the ground that 2nd respondent is prejudiced towards the appellant-writ petitioner. While deciding the writ petition, the learned Single Judge directed the 2nd respondent – Joint collector before whom the appeal filed by the 4th respondent is pending adjudication to reopen the matter and hear the appeal after giving due opportunity to both the contesting parties on 12.2.2008 and the learned counsel appearing for the parties were requested to inform the date fixed by the Court to the respective parties. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that since the appellant has made allegations against the 2nd respondent- Joint Collector and has also filed a contempt case against him in which he was made to appear before the learned Single Judge, the appellant apprehends that the 2nd respondent may get prejudiced and, therefore, he may not get justice if the appeal is decided by the 2nd respondent. Learned counsel, therefore, seeks for transfer of the appeal filed by the 4th respondent from the file of the Joint Collector to the file of the District Collector. Sri Veera Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent, on the other hand, submitted that if the appeal is transferred to the file of the District Collector, the party who may be aggrieved by the order that may be passed by the District Collector in the appeal, will be deprived of his right to file a revision against the order of the District Collector as the District Collector himself is the revisonal authority before whom a revision can be preferred against the order of the Joint Collector. No doubt, it is true that if the appeal is transferred to the file of the District Collector, the party who may be aggrieved by the order in the appeal will be deprived of an opportunity to file a revision against the order to be passed by the District Judge. But, keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case and also keeping in view the fact that the learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent has not seriously opposed for transfer of the appeal to the file of the District Collector, we deem it appropriate to direct that the appeal pending before the Joint Collector be withdrawn from his file and be transferred to the file of the District Collector. We further direct that the District Collector shall decide the appeal as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, uninfluenced by any of the observations made by the learned Single Judge or this Court. The Writ Appeal is disposed of as above with no order as to costs. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ 11th February, 2008 GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J vtv