THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA WRIT PETITION No.3085 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioner is aggrieved by the action of the third respondent in cancelling the authorisation granted to the petitioner for running a fair price shop vide order dated 26.07.2007. The petitioner was appointed as fair price shop dealer of T.Sadum Village. The Civil Supplies Deputy Tahsildar (Enforcement), Srikalahasthi reported to the third respondent- Revenue Divisional Officer, Madanapalle stating that the petitioner has committed certain irregularities and that action should be initiated against him. The irregularities were as follows: “1. The dealer has shown false account in the sales register. Hence, the dealer failed to maintain registers/record, thereby violated condition 4(I) of the authorisation. 2. The dealer was selling the K.Oil at higher rates i.e., Rs.10/- instead of Rs.9.50 as fixed by the Government, and thereby violated condition 7 of the authorisation. 3. After verification of coupons with sales register it is found that there is variation of 104 liters of K.Oil with ground balance, thereby violated 4(i) of the authorisation.” The Revenue Divisional Officer, Madanapalle considered the report filed by the Civil Supplies Deputy Tahsildar (Enforcement), Srikalahasthi and cancelled the authorisation of the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the order of cancellation passed by the Revenue Divisional officer, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the second respondent-Joint Collector, Chittoor and the same was dismissed vide order dated 30.08.2007. Still aggrieved, the petitioner filed a revision before the first respondent-District Collector, Chittoor, which was also dismissed vide order dated 04.01.2008. Learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for the respondents submits that in this writ petition the petitioner has challenged only the order passed by the third respondent and he has not impugned the subsequent orders passed by respondents 1 and 2 in the appeal and revision. He further submits that as the orders passed by the third respondent dated 26.07.2007 have been merged in the appellate and revisional orders, the petitioner ought to have challenged the subsequent orders also. He further submits that this writ petition is not maintainable. A perusal of the aforementioned facts shows that the authorisation granted in favour of the petitioner for running fair price shop was cancelled by the third respondent, against which, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the second respondent and on dismissal of the same, he filed a revision before the first respondent and the same was also dismissed. The petitioner ought to have challenged the orders passed by respondents 1 and 2 also. As those orders have not been impugned, this writ petition is not maintainable. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, J Date: 14.12.2010 va