IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) SATURDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 19357 of 2008 Between: Potluri Veera Raghavulu S/o.Nasaraiah R/o.Boggaram village Ipuru Mandal, Guntur District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Collector, Guntur District 2 The Joint Collector, Guntur 3 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Narasaraopet, Guntur District 4 The Tahsildar, Ipur Mandal, Guntur 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 a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction declaring the impugned order made in Revision case No.4/2008- S7 dated 11.8.2008 on the ﬁle of the Collector, Guntur as illegal, arbitrary, and also violative of principles of natural justice Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.D.KRISHNA MURTHY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 19357 of 2008 O R D E R: The petitioner is the authorized dealer of the Fair Price Shop of Boggaram Village. His authorization was cancelled by the third respondent herein by order dated 21.11.2007. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the second respondent and it was dismissed by order dated 25.04.2008. However, by virtue of the order of this Court in W.P.No.1231 of 2008, during the pendency of the appeal before the second respondent, the order of the third respondent dated 21.11.2007 was suspended and the petitioner was allowed to continue as dealer. As against the said order of the second respondent, dated 25.04.2008, the petitioner preferred a revision petition before the ﬁrst respondent. Though the said revision petition was entertained and the petitioner was directed to appear on 19.08.2008, the ﬁrst respondent by order dated 11.08.2008 rejected the request of the petitioner for grant of stay. Hence, this writ petition. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for the respondents. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and particularly keeping in view that pending the appeal before the second respondent, the petitioner was allowed to continue as dealer by virtue of the order of this Court in W.P.No.1231 of 2008, I am of the opinion that the impugned order passed by the first respondent is unwarranted and unjustified. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the ﬁrst respondent to dispose of the revision petition pending on his ﬁle following due process of law expeditiously. Till such time, the order of the third respondent dated 21.11.2007 as conﬁrmed by the second respondent by order dated 25.04.0008 shall remain suspended. No costs. ___________ G.ROHINI, J Date: 06.09.2008 Note: Furnish CC in three days B/o va