THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.3466 of 2011 Date:15.02.2011 Between: T. Prasanna Lakshmi ..... Petitioner AND The District Collector (CS), Ongole and others .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri I. Koti Reddy Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 4: Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies Counsel for Respondent No.5: Sri I. Gopal Reddy The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to set aside the order dated 02.02.2011 of respondent No.1, whereby he has stayed the operation of order dated 04.01.2011 of respondent No.2. I have heard Sri I.Koti Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. The petitioner’s fair price shop authorization was cancelled by respondent No.3. In the appeal filed by the petitioner against the said order, respondent No.2 set aside the order of respondent No.3, vide his order dated 04.01.2011. The aggrieved persons have filed revision petition before respodentNo.1, who by the impugned order dated 02.02.2011 stayed operation of the order of respondent No.2 pending further orders. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent No.1 has not exercised his jurisdiction properly and erroneously granted stay. In my opinion, this submission of the learned counsel cannot be appreciated. Respondent No.1 being the revisional authority is empowered to examine the legality, correctness and propriety of the orders passed by the appellate authorities and vested with the power to grant appropriate interim orders pending revision. Undoubtedly grant of interim order falls in the realm of discretion of the authority concerned. From the perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that respondent No.1 exercised his discretion by granting an ad interim order. If the petitioner feels aggrieved by such an order, she is entitled to move respondent No.1 for vacating the said order. Instead of doing so, the petitioner rushed to this Court by invoking the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court. Therefore, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition at this stage. The petitioner is permitted to move respondent No.1 for vacating the order of stay granted by him. If such an application is filed, the same shall be disposed of, after notice to respondent No.5, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of such application. Subject to the above observations and direction, the Writ Petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.4285 of 2011 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is dismissed as infructuous. ________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 15th February, 2011 GHN