HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No.8863 of 2008 Date: November 3, 2011 Between: Cheeda Srinivasa Rao, S/o. Subbarayudu … Petitioner And The District Collector (CS), Prakasam, at ONgole and others … Respondents Order: This writ petition is filed questioning the order dated 15.04.2008 passed in Rc.CS2/477/2008, by the 1st respondent-District Collector (C.S.), Prakasam. When the vacancy of fair price shop arose in Pothavaram village, Podili Mandal, Prakasam District, the 3rd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, Kandukuru, issued notification inviting applications for appointment. In response thereto, petitioner as well as the 5th respondent have applied; the petitioner was selected and the 3rd respondent has issued proceedings dated 29.01.2005 appointing the petitioner as dealer. Aggrieved of the said order, the 5th respondent filed an appeal before the 2nd respondent-Joint Collector, who has allowed the appeal by order dated 28.01.2008 on the ground that the petitioner was facing criminal proceedings in C.C.No.41/2002 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Podili. Aggrieved of the said order, petitioner filed a revision before the 1st respondent-District Collector, who, by order dated 04.01.2006 dismissed the revision. Questioning the said order, petitioner filed W.P.No.714 of 2006 before this Court. In C.C.No.41/2002 which was pending against the petitioner-accused on the file of the JFCM, Podili, he was acquitted by judgment dated 14.08.2006. When W.P.No.714 of 2006 came up for hearing, this Court, by order dated 27.09.2006 permitted the petitioner to make an application to the Revenue Divisional Officer, enclosing a copy of the judgment in C.C.No.41/2002 and the RDO was directed to consider the same and pass appropriate orders as per the A.P. Public Distribution System (Control) Order 2001, framed under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. In view of the observations made by this Court in the aforesaid order, which has become final, the petitioner approached the RDO enclosing a copy of the judgment in C.C.No.41/2002 and the RDO after considering the claim of the petitioner passed order dated 25.11.2006 appointing the petitioner as fair price shop dealer of Podili village. Questioning the said order, again, the 5th respondent filed an appeal before the 2nd respondent- Joint Collector, who, by order dated 28.01.2008 dismissed the appeal. Thereafter, the 5th respondent carried the matter in revision before the 1st respondent-District Collector under Clause 21 of the Control Order, which is allowed by order dated 15.04.2008. It is that order which is impugned in this writ petition. At the stage of admission, by order dated 22.04.2008, this Court suspended the impugned order in WPMP No.11752 of 2008. It is contended by Sri P.Laxma Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner that when there was direction from this Court in the earlier writ petition to consider the candidature of the petitioner taking into account his acquittal in C.C.No.41/2002 on the file of the JFCM, Podili, the petitioner was appointed as dealer for the fair price shop in question and the said order was also confirmed by the appellate authority. It is submitted that contrary to the directions issued by this Court, impugned order is passed by the revisional authority, setting aside the appointment of the petitioner. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies, appearing for respondents 1 to 4 and Sri I.Gopal Reddy, learned counsel for the 5th respondent, that directions issued by this Court were only to consider the candidature of the petitioner; in that view of the matter, the revisional authority has taken note of the pendency of criminal case against the petitioner, when selections were made and passed the impugned order; as such there are no grounds to interfere with the same. In this case, it is not in dispute that, at first instance, in the selections made, petitioner was appointed as dealer for the fair price shop of Podili village on the ground that he is more meritorious than the 5th respondent, having regard to his performance in the interview and other documents produced by him. Though the petitioner was selected and appointed as dealer for the fair price shop in question; only on the ground that a criminal case was pending against him, his appointment was set aside. When, ultimately, the matter has come up before this Court in W.P.No.714 of 2006, the following observations were made: “In view of the above, the petitioner is directed to file an application annexing the copy of the order passed in C.C.No.41 of 2002 dated 14.08.2006 as required under law before the third respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer. On such application being filed, the third respondent shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders as per clause 5(4) of the Annexure to the Control Orders within a period of three weeks from the date of filing of application by the petitioner. With the above observation and direction, the writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs.” It is also not in dispute that in the criminal case which was pending against the petitioner vide C.C.No.41/2002 on the file of the JFCM, Podili, he was acquitted. When there was a direction from this Court to consider the representation of the petitioner in the light of the judgment in C.C.No.41/2002, dated 14.08.2002, the Revenue Divisional Officer has taken note of the judgment by which the petitioner was acquitted from the charges in the aforesaid case and appointed him as dealer. When the 5th respondent carried the matter in appeal, even the appellate authority rejected the same and confirmed the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer. But, the revisional authority has allowed the revision on the ground that in view of pendency of the criminal case, petitioner was not eligible to be appointed as dealer. In the light of the observations made by this Court, wherein directions were issued to the 3rd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer to consider the candidature of the petitioner in view of his acquittal in C.C.No.41/2002 by the JFCM, Podili, it is not open to the 1st respondent/revisional authority to set aside the appointment of the petitioner on the ground that he was involved in a crime. When the judgment of acquittal of the petitioner from the criminal case has become final and when there is a direction from this Court to consider the claim of the petitioner for restoration of his appointment, the 1st respondent/revisional authority has passed the impugned order contrary to the observations of this Court in W.P.No.714 of 2006. As it is not in dispute that the petitioner is continued as dealer since the date of his appointment and in view of the interim orders of this Court and as this Court is of the view that the order of the 1st respondent/revisional authority is contrary to the observations made by this Court in W.P.No.714 of 2006, the impugned order is fit to be set aside. Accordingly, the order dated 15.04.2008 passed in Rc.CS2/477/2008, by the 1st respondent-District Collector (C.S.), Prakasam, is set aside. Writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs. ___________________ (R.SUBHASH REDDY, J) November 3, 2011 MRR