HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.28363 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioner, who is a fair price shop dealer for distribution of essential commodities in Dabbirajupeta Village, Vepada Mandal, Vizianagarm District, filed this Writ Petition seeking to declare the action of respondent No.2 in entertaining the Revision Petition in FPSAP No.22 of 2008 filed by respondent No.4, as illegal and arbitrary. The authorisation granted to the petitioner in respect of the said fair price shop was cancelled on certain charges. The said order was confirmed by the appellate and revisional authorities. As against the same, the petitioner approached this Court on the earlier occasion and filed Writ Petition No.4689 of 2003, in which mainly it was his case that the report of the Mandal Revenue Officer, which formed the basis of the charges, was not supplied to him before passing the order of cancellation of authorisation. On the aforesaid ground, the order of cancellation of authorisation passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, as was confirmed by the appellate and revisional authorities, was set side with a direction to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Vizianagaram, to supply a copy of the report of the Mandal Revenue Officer to the petitioner and thereafter, to pass appropriate orders after considering the explanation to be submitted by the petitioner. Pursuant to the orders of this Court in the said Writ Petition, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Vizianagaram, has issued vide proceedings Rc.No.892/2003D, dated 21.06.2008, whereby the petitioner was reinstated as fair price shop dealer to the said Village for distribution of the essential commodities. As against the said order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, dated 21.06.2008, it appears respondent No.4 carried the matter by way of Revision Petition before respondent No.2. This Writ Petition is filed questioning the authority of respondent No.2 in entertaining the said Revision Petition. Mainly, it is the case of the petitioner that respondent No.4 is only a temporary dealer, who was appointed in his place and as such, he is not eligible to question the reinstatement of the petitioner as fair price shop dealer. That apart, it is also his case that the Revision Petition filed by respondent No.4 was not within the time frame as per Rule-17 of the A.P. Schedule Commodities (Regulation and Distribution by Card System) Order, 1973, framed under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. When the matter is taken up, it is fairly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that by raising the aforesaid pleas, the petitioner has already filed counter-affidavit before respondent No.2-Joint Collector, Vizianagaram, in the said Revision Petition. In this case, it is to be noticed that on the Revision Petition filed by respondent No.4, as of now no orders have been passed by respondent No.2. Though the petitioner is opposing the entertainment of the Revision Petition by respondent No.4, he has already subjected himself to the jurisdiction of respondent No.2 by filing a counter-affidavit therein, opposing the Revision Petition filed by respondent No.4. In that view of the matter, the petitioner can still pursue his objections before respondent No.2. Even before passing of any orders by the said authority, the petitioner has rushed to this Court by way of filing this Writ Petition. Inasmuch as it is stated that the matter is pending before respondent No.2, I deem it appropriate to dispose of this Writ Petition with a direction to respondent No.2 to look into the objections raised by the petitioner before recording his findings on the Revision Petition filed by respondent No.4 and dispose of the Revision Petition within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be a further direction to the respondents to maintain status quo as on today with regard to functioning of the said fair price shop till appropriate final orders are passed by respondent No.2 in the said Revision Petition and the same is communicated to the petitioner. Subject to the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________________ JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY 03rd December 2011 DR