IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 15614 of 2008 Between: Smt. P.Nagaraja W/o.Chengalrayu Chetty, Hindu, D.No.17-30 Pakalavaripalle, Panapakam, Changragiri(M), Chittoor District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector Chittoor District at Chittoor 2 The joint Collector Chittoor District Chittoor 3 The Revenue Divisional officer Tirupathi Chittoor District 4 The Tahaslidar Chandragiri(M) Chittoor .....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, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the part of the 1st respondent in not deciding the petitioner's revision petition field against an order dt.30-11- 2007 in C1/1239/2007 passed by the 2nd respondent herein as illegal, arbitrary, violative of the provisions of Rule 20(1) A.P Civil Supplies Distribution Systems Control Order 2001 and offends Article 14 of the constitution of India and consequently direct the 1st respondent to decide the petitioner's revision petition on merits and in accordance with the law and to pass such other orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.MUNIRAJA IRUGU Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 15614 of 2008 ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. The petitioner’s authorization for the fair price shop of Pakalavarpalli, Hamlet of Panapakam, Chandragiri Mandal, Chittoor District, i.e. Shop No. 20, was suspended by the 3rd respondent by the order dated 6.6.2007. A writ petition preferred there against was disposed of by this Court on 21.6.2007 directing the 3rd respondent to conclude the enquiry within four weeks. On 30.7.2007, the 3rd respondent issued a show cause notice, to which, the petitioner submitted his explanation on 14.8.2007. Thereafter, by the final order dated 21.8.2007, the 3rd respondent cancelled the petitioner’s authorization. Again, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the 2nd respondent, which was rejected by the order dated 30.11.2007. The petitioner preferred a revision to the 1st respondent in January, 2008 and complains herein that the 1st respondent has not considered the revision despite the lapse of nearly seven months. In the circumstances above, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to expeditiously, and in any event, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, consider and pass final orders on the revision of the petitioner preferred in January, 2008. Needless to mention that the 1st respondent is required to record reasons for the conclusions in the revision. The writ petition is disposed of as above at the stage of admission. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ GODA RAGHURAM,J DATE: 21st July, 2008 Pnb