( 1 ) WHETHER a temporary fair price shop dealer falls within the ambit and scope of the expression "any aggrieved person" used in Clauses 20 and 21 of the Andhra Pradesh State Public distribution System Control Order, 2001 (for short, 'the Control Order') is the question, which has been referred by the Division bench to the Larger Bench in view of apparently conflicting opinions expressed by the two Division Benches in B. Maheswaramma v. M. Ramasubbamma, 1995 (3) ALD 461 = 1996 (1) ALT 274 and judgment dated 19-3-1997 rendered in Writ Appeal No. 1146 of 1995.

( 2 ) FOR deciding the aforementioned question, it will be useful to notice the background facts. Writ Appeal No. 1805 of 2005 m. Vanaja v. B. Balaseshanna and others

( 3 ) RESPONDENT No. 1-5. Balaseshanna was appointed as fair price shop dealer of U. Bollavaram Village, Mahanandi mandal, Kurnool District prior to 1975. On 10-8-2001, his authorisation was suspended by Revenue Divisional Officer, Nandyal (respondent No. 4) on the allegations that he was absent at the time of inspection on 1-8-2001, that he sold 30 quintals of rice in black market, that he contravened the conditions of authorisation and that he did not take release order for essential commodities. After six months, the appellant was appointed as temporary fair price shop dealer vide proceedings dated 7-2-2002. Respondent No. 1 challenged his suspension by filing an appeal under Clause 20 of the control Order, which was disposed of by joint Collector, Kurnool (respondent No. 3) vide his order dated 9-12-2004. Respondent no. 3, restored the authorisation of respondent no. l after imposing fine of Rs. 800/- and forfeiting the security deposit. The appellant challenged that order by filing revision under Clause 21 of the Control Order. She also filed an application for stay. By an order dated 22-1-2005, respondent No. 2 suspended the operation of order dated 9-12-2004.

( 4 ) RESPONDENT No. l challenged that order in Writ Petition No. 1463 of 2005. He pleaded that respondent No. 2 did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the revision filed by the appellant because she cannot be treated as a person aggrieved by the order passed by respondent No. 3 under Clause 20 of the Control Order. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and declared that the District collector did not have the jurisdiction to entertain revision filed by non-petitioner No. 4 (the appellant herein) under Clause 21 of the Control Order. The learned Single Judge referred to Clauses 20 and 21 of the Control order and held:

"the above clause is in pari materia with clause 18 of 1973 Control Order. Said clause enables any person aggrieved by any order under clause 20 (1 ) (i) to prefer a revision to the District Collector within thirty days. Clause 21 (1) gives right of appeal to any person who is aggrieved by any order under clause 5. Fourth respondent is not a person who can be said to be aggrieved by order passed by Joint Collector. When she cannot be said to be aggrieved person, qua order passed by Revenue Divisional Officer, she has no locus stand. Indeed, this question is no more res Integra"

( 5 ) THE appellant challenged the aforementioned order by contending that the view expressed by the learned Single Judge on her locus to file revision under Clause 21 is erroneous. During the course of hearing the writ appeal, the Division Bench felt that the issue of locus of the temporary fair price shop dealer to file revision under clause 21 of the Control Order deserves to be considered by the Larger Bench and this is how the matter has been placed before the Full Bench. WA No. 270 of 2007 boda Venkateshwarlu v. District Collector, prakasam and others

( 6 ) THE appellant was appointed as fair price shop dealer for Chapalamadugu Village, pullalacheruvu Mandal, Prakasam District in 2002. On 1-1-2005, he applied for six months' leave on the ground of ill-health. By an order dated 11-1-2005, Revenue divisional Office