IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 5511 of 2008 Between: V.Satyanarayana S/o.V.Venkataiah, Shop No.5 Pargi, R.R. District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, R.R. District. 2 The Joint Collector & Addl. Dist. Magistrate, R.R. District. 3 The Special Grade Deputy Collector & R.D.O., Chevella Division, Ranga Reddy District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.B.VIJAYSEN REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: AGP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare the inaction of respondent No.1 in entertaining the stay application filed by the petitioner along with revision petition filed on 10.03.2008 questioning order, dated 18.01.2008 passed by respondent No.2 in Appeal No.A7/699/2007 and order, dated 03.09.2007 passed by respondent No.3 as illegal. Heard Sri B.Vijaysen Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. The petitioner’s fair price shop authorization was cancelled by respondent No.3 vide his proceedings, dated 03.09.2007. Assailing the said order, the petitioner filed appeal before respondent No.2, which was dismissed by respondent No.2 vide his order, dated 18.01.2008. Questioning the said order, the petitioner claimed to have filed a revision petition on 10.03.2008 and along with the said revision petition, he also claimed that he filed a stay application. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order passed by respondent No.3 is wholly unsustainable and the same was passed for extraneous considerations, inasmuch as he cancelled fair price shop authorizations in a series of cases by passing stereotyped orders. Inasmuch as the revision petition filed by the petitioner is pending, I do not feel it appropriate to consider the submissions of the learned counsel on merits. The petitioner is given liberty to raise all the contentions pertaining to the legality and validity of the order passed by respondent No.3 and as confirmed by respondent No.2, before respondent No.1 and the latter shall after giving an opportunity to the petitioner, pass a reasoned order and communicate the same to the petitioner. In this view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of. Respondent No.1 is directed to dispose of the revision petition along with the stay application within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Since I find that the request of the learned counsel that the respondents may not make appointment of a fair price shop dealer on regular basis in respect of the shop in question pending the revision is reasonable, the respondents are directed not to fill up the vacancy till the disposal of revision by respondent No.1. As a sequel to disposal of main petition, WPMP.No.7149 of 2008 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 14th MARCH, 2008 Note: issue c.c. in four (4) days. B/o kvni