3]Insofar as petitioner no.2 is
concerned, she was running fair
price shop. Authorization of the
fair price shop was however,
cancelled by the Collector vide
order dated 12/8/2010. This order
of the Collector has been
challengedinRevisionby
petitioner no.2 and that the
Revision is still pending. In the
meanwhile, respondent no.3-District
Supply Officer has issued fresh
proclamation on 21/12/2010 for
allotment of fair price shop. This
proclamation, according to the
petitioner no.2, has been issued in
view of the cancellation of
petitioner�s fair price shop. It
isagainstthisbackdrop,
petitioner has prayed for setting
aside the proclamation, pending the
hearing and final disposal of the
Revision filed by petitioner no.2
before respondent no.2. There is
no dispute that the order dated
12/8/2010 passed by the Collector,
cancelling the authorization has
not been stayed in the Revision by
respondent no.2. Keeping that in
view, I do not find any reason to
pass an order as prayed for in the
Writ Petition. Hence Writ Petition
is dismissed. However, it is made
clear that if further steps are
taken as per the proclamation dated
