The petitioner who for obvious reasons is after respondent No.5 to see that her authorisation is cancelled on a spacious ground of her not residing in the village for which she holds the fair price shop authorization has initiated yet another round of litigation by filing this writ petition.

A perusal of the contents of the affidavit filed in support of writ petition would show that the litigation is hanging fire since 16.11.2007 when the authorization of respondent No.5 was cancelled on the sole ground of her alleged non residence at the Rajampet village. Since then respondent No.5 is dragged to different fora. When she eventually succeeded before respondent No.3 who by his order, dated 21.01.2010 sought to put a quietus to the litigation by allowing the appeal filed by respondent No.5 and setting aside order, dated 21.05.2009 of respondent No.4 cancelling her authorization, the petitioner has filed a Revision Petition before respondent No.2 along with an application for condonation of delay, respondent No.2 who has first dealt with the petitioner’s application for condonation of delay has dismissed the same and in my view rightly so on the ground that under Clause 21(i)