IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION NO : 11674 of 2008 Between: G.Prakash S/o.Jogaiah Muchinthala (v) Penuganchiprolu (M), Krishna District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, Krishna District, Machilipatnam. 2 The Joint Collector, Krishna District, at Machilipatnam. 3 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 4 The Tahsildar, Penuganchiprolu (M), at Penuganchiprolu , Krishna District. .....RESPONDENTS 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 writ or direction preferably writ of Mandamus declaring the order issued by the 1st respondent in the proceedings No. B1/RP/08/2008 dated 24.4.2008 confirming the orders of respondent No.2 Rc. no.B1/SR Appeal No.7/2007 dt. 21-5- 2007 are illegal arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents to restore the authorization of the petitioner's Fair Price Shop of Muchinthala (v) Punuganchiprolu (M) of Krishna District, and pass such other or further orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.KOWTURU VINAYA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following : ORDER: The petitioner was appointed as Fair Price Shop Dealer of Muchinthala Village, Penuganchiprolu Mandal, Krishna District, in the year 1979. While so, the third respondent issued a show cause notice, dated 14.09.1998, on the ground of not lifting essential commodities. The case of the petitioner is that as his daughter was suffering from serious ailment, he had applied for leave, and thereafter, he approached the Mandal Revenue Officer with a request to release essential commodities for distribution. As there was no response, he approached the third respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, Vijayawada, and again no action has been taken thereon. Hence, he filed W.P.No.27954 of 2005 before this Court seeking to consider the application for renewal of the fair price shop dealership, which was disposed of directing him to file an application for renewal so as to enable the authorities to consider the same. The said application was considered and rejected by order, dated 05.10.2006, by the third respondent. As against the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the second respondent-Joint Collector, Krishna, and the appellate authority by a reasoned order dismissed the appeal on 21.05.2007. Questioning the said order, the petitioner filed W.P.No.12888 of 2007 and this Court dismissed the said writ petition on merits by order, dated 23.10.2007. Later, against the order of the appellate authority, dated 21.05.2007, the petitioner filed a revision before the first respondent-District Collector, Krishna, which was dismissed by order, dated 24.04.2008. Questioning the same, the present writ petition has been filed. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the order of the appellate authority has been questioned on the file of this Court and this Court dismissed the writ petition on merits, and therefore, once the order of the appellate authority has been merged in the order of writ petition, the question of filing revision does not arise and, though the revisional authority entertained and dismissed the revision on the ground that the revision was filed beyond stipulated time, I am of the opinion that as the order of the appellate authority was already merged in the order of this Court, the petitioner is not entitled to question the revisional order before this Court. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _____________ V.ESWARAIAH,J Dt:10.06.2008 GJ