IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 16354 of 2008 Between: Peddireddi Ramana Reddy, S/o. Venkat Reddy, R/o. Somalaregada Village & Post, Duttaluru Mandal, Nellore District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, Nellore, Nellore District. 2 The Joint Collector, Nellore, Nellore District. 3 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kavali, Nellore District. 4 The Tahsildar, Dattaluru Mandal, Dattaluru, Nellore 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 an order or direction, more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the Notification issued by the 3rd respondent vide RCB. No. 2008/2008, dt. 1-7-2008 even though the Appeal dated 10-7-2008 filed by the petitioner before the 1st respondent in pending against the proceedings Rc.No. E. 128/2008, dated 28-6-2008 issued by the 3rd respondent, confirming the proceedings B/3366/2007, dated 28-6-2008 issued by 3 & 4 respondent, without properly considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner, as illegal, arbitrary contrary to law, and unconstitutional, apart from being violative of principles of natural justice and violative of Articles 14, 19 (1) (g) and 21 of the constitution of India, and declare the same as void ab initio, null and void and non-est in the eye of law and consequently stay all further proceedings relating to the filling-up of the post Fair Price Shop Dealership situated at Somala Regada Village, Duttalur Mandal, Nellore District is concerned, and pass such other orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MRS.A.BALA BARATHI Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 16354 of 2008 ORDER: This writ petition is filed challenging the notification dated 1.7.2008 issued by the 3rd respondent calling for applications from interested persons for grant of authorization in respect of several fair price shops in Kavali Revenue Division. At Sl. No. 13 of the notification, the fair price shop in Somalaregada Village, Dhuttalur Mandal, is also notified. The petitioner was granted authorization in respect of Somalaregada Village and claims to have been functioning as such for over 22 years. On a complaint by the Village Sarpanch on 20.4.2007 with the 3rd respondent alleging that the petitioner was not a resident of the village and was not running the fair price shop properly, an enquiry was initiated. After process of enquiry, his authorization was cancelled by an order of the 3rd respondent dated 18.2.2008. Thereagainst, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the 2nd respondent and by an order dated 28.6.2008, the 2nd respondent rejected the appeal and confirmed the order of the 3rd respondent cancelling the petitioner’s authorization. The petitioner preferred a revision thereupon to the 1st respondent on 10.7.2008. The petitioner’s complaint is that even during the pendency of the revision before the 1st respondent against the order of the 3rd respondent cancelling the authorization, the 3rd respondent had issued the impugned notification dated 1.7.2008 inter alia notifying Somalaregada Village for grant of a fresh authorization. It requires to be noticed that Note (1) to the notification specifically states that any authorization granted pursuant to a process of selection consequent to the impugned notification will be subject to any cases pending before the Court on any appeal. The learned counsel for the petitioner assails the notification on the singular ground that no such notification ought to have been issued during the currency and pendency of a revision before the 1st respondent. This is a contention that is stated to be rejected. The mere pendency of a revision before the 1st respondent does not amount to stay of the order of cancellation passed by the 3rd respondent as confirmed by the second respondent in appeal. The note recorded in the impugned notification amply makes it clear that any grant of authorization would be subject to the result of any appeal or case pending in any Court. The petitioner’s interests in the event of his success in the revision are amply protected. The petitioner can have no grievance in the circumstances. The impugned notification is thus seen to suffer from no infirmity, warranting interference in judicial review. The writ petition is without merits and it is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission after hearing the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies also. No costs. ____________________ GODA RAGHURAM,J DATE: 29th July, 2008 pnb