(Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta, CJ.)

Both the appeals are taken up for hearing analogously, as by these two appeals common judgment and order dated 13.03.2014 passed by the learned Trial Judge in W.P.Nos.10860 and 16346 of 2010 has been assailed.

2. It appears that two separate appeals were preferred as above two writ petitions were filed by the appellant herein.

3. By W.P.No.10860 of 2010 (hereinafter referred to as first writ petition) order dated 10.03.2009 passed by the 1st respondent herein, and consequential order dated 03.03.2010 followed by order dated 13.04.2010 passed by the 2nd and 3rd respondents respectively were challenged. By W.P.No.16346 of 2010 (hereinafter referred to as second writ petition) order dated 12.06.2009 passed by the 3rd respondent authorizing the 5th respondent herein to act as fair price shop dealer in respect of shop No.34 of Vetlapalem Village, Samalkot Mandal, East Godavari District was challenged.

4. By the impugned judgment and order the learned Trial Judge disposed of two writ petitions finally on consent of the parties deciding the matter on merit while hearing the application for vacating interim order made by the 5th respondent. Bereft of all details of the fact, we just record the relevant facts to dispose of the appeals.

5. The 5th respondent in W.A.No.1034 of 2014 was appointed as dealer of fair price shop No.34 of Vetlapalem Village, Samalkot Mandal, East Godavari District sometime prior to 2005. Thereafter, prior to April, 2005 disciplinary proceedings was to be initiated on the ground of shortage of stock of rice of a particular grade, in connection therewith it was suspended. Accordingly, as a temporary measure, the appellant herein was appointed as dealer in respect of the same shop by order dated 13.04.2005 and from time to time on extension temporary arrangement continued till 2015. Eventually, the authorization of the 5th respondent as a dealer was cancelled by an order dated 12.10.2005 by the 2nd respondent. The 5th respondent preferred appeal unsuccessfully to the Joint Collector against this order, as he by order dated 09.02.2008 rejected the appeal. The 5th respondent thence filed revision application to the District Collector, who, ultimately, passed an order dated 10.03.2009 accepting the request for revision. By this order the revisional authority asked the 3rd respondent, who is the first authority, to review and re-consider the 5th respondents case for restoration of dealership, who, by order dated 03.03.2010 restored the dealership of the 5th respondent and consequently temporary appointment of the appellant was cancelled.

6. It appears from the records that during the pendency of the writ petition being W.P.No.16346 of 2010, pursuant to the interim order passed by the learned Trial Judge, the order of restoration of dealership of the 5th respondent was stayed and temporary appointment of the appellant was renewed. The 5th respondent challenged the order renewing the temporary order of appointment and at the same time also made an application for vacating the interim order. The learned Trial Judge dismissing both the writ petitions held that the temporary appointment was an alternative measure and it did not create any right in favour of the appellant and it was held that the moment the dealership of the 5th respondent was restored, the right of the appellant ceased. It was also held by the learned Trial Judge that though the appellant is having locus to challenge the order of restoration of dealership of the 5th respondent, however, she could have preferred a revision application being an aggrieved person within the meaning of clause 21 of the A.P. State Public Distribution System Control Order, 2001 (hereafter referred to as Control Order).

7. In these appeals, it is contended before us by the learned counsel for the appellant that by the order of the revisional authority the right of the appellant is seriously affected, as temporary order of appointment has