IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.490 of 2009 Between: G. Nagi Reddy S/o. Pedda Ail Reddy Viswanathapur Village, Yalal Mandal, R.R. District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, Lakdikapul, Hyderabad. 2 The Joint Collector, (C.S.)-II, Ranga Reddy District, Lakdikapul, Hyderabad. 3 The Sub Collector/R.D.O., Vikarabad Division, at Vikarabad, Ranga Reddy 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 may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to set aside the order of the Respondent No.3 in Proc.No.I/544/2008 dt. 26.04.2008 and Respondent No.2 in Proc.No.A7/477/2008 dt. 06.12.2008 and consequently direct the respondents to supply the Essential Commodities to the petitioner shop renewing his authorisation as it is. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.BOLLAM LINGAIAH YADAV Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.490 OF 2009 ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. It appears, the authorization of the petitioner as fair price shop dealer of Vishwanathpur Village, Yalal Mandal of Ranga Reddy District, was cancelled by the 3rd respondent- Sub Collector, Vikarabad Division, Ranga Reddy District, vide order dated 26.04.2008, for certain irregularities alleged to have been committed by him in the distribution of essential commodities to the card-holders. Challenging the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the 2nd respondent-Joint Collector-II, Ranga Reddy District. During the pendency of the said appeal, there was interim stay of the order passed by the 3rd respondent, but however, ultimately, the appeal was dismissed on 06.12.2008 upholding the order of the 3rd respondent. The petitioner contends that aggrieved by the said order of the 2nd respondent, he filed a revision before the 1st respondent- District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, along with a stay petition, but the 1st respondent, having not granted stay, is not expediting the hearing of the revision. Hence, this writ petition. In the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merits, I deem it appropriate to direct the respondents to maintain status quo obtaining as on today as to the running of fair price shop in question till the disposal of the revision pending before the 1st respondent, and the 1st respondent shall dispose of the revision in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. _________________ JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU 21st January, 2009. Note:- Issue CC in two days. BO IBL