HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY W.P.No.30531 of 2010 Date : 20-12-2010 Between : Kumari R.Nareshamma d/o.Narasimhulu .. Petitioner And The District Collector, Kurnool, Kurnool District and others .. Respondents Counsel for petitioner : Counsel for respondents : Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue The Court made the following : ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not appointing the petitioner as fair price shop dealer in respect of Shop No.41-B of Stantapuram village, Kurnool District, as illegal and arbitrary. At the hearing, there is no representation for the petitioner. I have heard the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner and two others have applied for appointment as fair price shop dealer for shop No.41-B. One G.Lakshmi Reddy was appointed as the fair price shop dealer. Against the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal before respondent No.2 who allowed the appeal and directed respondent No.3 to renotify the shop. Feeling aggrieved by the said direction, the petitioner filed a revision petition before respondent No.1. The petitioner alleged that while the said revision petition is pending along with stay application, respondent No.3 has issued a fresh notification on 1-11-2010 for filling up of the vacancy. He has therefore filed the present Writ Petition. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies, on instructions, stated that the revision petition was admitted and the stay application was rejected by order dated 20-11- 2010 of respondent No.1. In my opinion, admission of the revision petition shows the existence of prima facie case in favour of the petitioner. If pending revision, any appointment is made in pursuance of the direction given by respondent No.2, that would result in involvement of third party interests in the case. As the direction given by respondent No.2 to notify the vacancy afresh is subject matter of the revision, elements of balance of convenience and irreparable injury lie in favour of the petitioner for staying filling up of the vacancy till disposal of the revision petition. In this view of the matter, the Writ Petition is disposed of with the direction to respondent No.3 not to fill up the vacancy in pursuance of the impugned notification pending disposal of the revision by respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 is directed to dispose of the revision petition within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. ____________________ C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy.,J Date : 20-12-2010 AM