IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 10800 of 2008 Between: Sri Sai Self-Help Group repby Group Leader- Smt. B. Pavana W/o B. Sugnana Moorthy, M. Gollapalli Village, H/o Moogavadi Miniki Post, Ramasamudram Madnal, Chittoor District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, Chittoor District, Chittoor, 2 The Joint Collector, Chittoor, Chittoor District. 3 Revenue Divisional Officer, Madanapalle, Chittoor District. 4 The Tahsildar, Ramasamudram Mandal, Chittoor District. 5 K. Ashrafullah, S/o Shaik Ahmmad, Moogavadi village, Ramasamudram mandal, Chittoor District. 6 B. Venkatamuni S/o Ramana Moogavadi Village, Ramasamudram mandal, Chittoor District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.T.BALAJI Counsel for Respondents 1 to 4: AGP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to set aside order, dated 09.02.2008 passed by respondent No.1. Heard Sri T. Balaji, learned counsel for the petitioner. A perusal of the record shows that there was a dispute regarding appointment of fair price shop dealer of Moogavadi Village, Ramasamudram Mandal, Chittoor District between respondent Nos. 5 and 6. Questioning the order of appointment of respondent No.6 as fair price shop dealer, respondent No.5 filed a writ petition and a writ appeal. In the writ appeal filed by him, this Court while disposing of the same permitted respondent No.5 to make a representation before respondent No.2. On such representation being made, the same was rejected by respondent No.2. Questioning the same, respondent No.5 filed a revision petition before respondent No.1. The said revision petition was dismissed by him on 09.02.2008. In the meantime, the authorization of respondent No.6 was cancelled on the ground of his failure to furnish necessary demand drafts towards the value of the essential commodities for distribution and the petitioner has been appointed as a temporary dealer in his place in the year 2003. The apprehension of the petitioner is that in view of the order passed by respondent No.1 dismissing the revision petition of respondent No.5, sixth respondent’s authorization stands restored. Having carefully considered the entire facts, I am of the view that the apprehension of the petitioner is totally without basis. Order, dated 09.02.2008 impugned in this writ petition does not have the effect of reviving the authorization of respondent No.6 if it was already cancelled in the year 2003. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of main petition, W.P.M.P.No.14092 of 2008 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated:14.05.2008 Note: issue c.c. in one week. B/o sj