IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JUNE, TWO THOUSAND NINE ONLY WRIT PETITION No.13137 of 2006 Between: Doki Jyostna. … Petitioners And District Collector (Civil Supplies), Srikakulam and Three others. . … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri K.Purushotham. Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Civil Supplies for R.1 & R.2. None for R.3 and R.4. This Court made the following: ORDER:- In this Writ Petition, the petitioner assailed order dated 15-5-2006 of respondent No.1, whereby he dismissed the joint revision petition filed by the petitioner and one Bagadi Suryakantam, respondent No.4 herein. Though notices were served on respondents 3 and 4, no appearance is made on their behalf and no one appeared for then at the hearing. In pursuance of notification issued by respondent No.2, the petitioner and respondents 3 and 4 applied for fair price shop dealership of Harischandrapuram village, Kotabommali Mandal, Srikakulam district. By order dated 10-2-2005 respondent No.2 appointed the petitioner as fair price shop dealer. The said order was questioned by respondents 3 and 4 in an appeal filed before the Joint Collector, Srikakulam. By order dated 28-5-2005 the Joint Collector set aside the order of respondent No.2 appointing the petitioner as a fair price shop dealer and directed appointment of respondent No.3 as a fair price shop dealer on the ground that she has secured the highest marks. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner and respondent No.4 filed a joint revision before respondent No.1, which was dismissed. Questioning the said order, the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition. A perusal of the impugned order passed by respondent No.1 shows that he has not considered the revision petition from the angle of the petitioner. He recorded the plea of the counsel for the joint revision petitioner, viz., Bagadi Suryakantam, on 8-12-2005, which related to the disqualification of the petitioner for appointment as a fair price dealer on the ground that her husband was working as a pump operator in P.G. Center at Yecherla. He also recorded the plea of the counsel for Bagadi Suryakantam that even respondent No.3 was also not qualified as her husband was a member of Food Advisory Society of Kotabommali Mandal and her husband’s brother is President of Polanki Panchayat. Taking into consideration the said submissions, respondent No.1 in his order observed that respondent No.3 was appointed as a dealer as she has got higher marks and, therefore, she cannot be disqualified on the ground that she was staying separately and that her husband’s brother was working in another Mandal. Respondent No.1 failed to address the grievance of the petitioner, whose appointment was set aside by the Joint Collector. Therefore, I am of the view that respondent No.1 has not made a proper approach in considering the grievance of the petitioner, who was also a revision petitioner before him and was a person, who was more aggrieved than Bagadi Suryakantam, because she was initially appointed as a fair price shop dealer by respondent No.2 and her appointment order was set aside by the Joint Collector. Therefore, failure of respondent No.1 to consider the petitioner’s revision resulted in failure of justice. Accordingly, the impugned order passed by respondent No.1 cannot be sustained. The Writ Petition is, therefore, allowed and the impugned order is quashed. The case is remitted back to respondent No.1 for fresh consideration. He shall dispose of the revision petition of the petitioner within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. ------------------------------------ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date:17-6-2009 MNR