THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CONTEMPT CASE No.514 OF 2010 JUDGMENT: 1 This court while disposing of the Writ Petition No.27102 of 2009 on 14.12.2009 observed as follows: “From a perusal of the G.O.Ms.No.32 dted 30.08.2007 issued by the 1st respondent , it is clear that preference shall be given to the hawkers/N.Rs having licence under the Rules for selection and appointment as fair price shop dealers. In view of the same and as it is the grievance of the petitioner that he made a representation dated 08.10.2009 to the 3rd respondent requesting to consider his case and convert his kerosene shop into fair price shop, and the 3rd respondent has not yet passed orders, respondents 2 to 4 are hereby directed to consider the representation of the petitioner and pass necessary orders thereon, in accordance with law.” 2 According to the learned counsel for the petitioner though there are vacancies, the respondents have not considered the case of the petitioner and as such the petitioner filed the present contempt case. 3. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed stating that unless and until a notification with regard to the filling up of the vacancies of F.P. Shop is issued, the petitioner’s case cannot be considered and in that context only the said representation was not considered and the petitioner was properly informed stating that as and when there is a notification and when the petitioner applies, his case will be considered. 4 Heard. 5 It is mainly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. A. Rajasekhar Reddy that the question of notification does not arise for the reason that the petitioner is a nominated retailer and as there are several vacancies, automatically his case has to be considered. But from a perusal of the circular instructions in CCS Ref No. PDS II (3)/10427/06 dated 23.3.2006 and G.O.Ms.No.32 dated 30.08.2007, this court is of the view that a notification is very much required and it is only when a notification is issued, the case of the persons like the petitioner will be considered by giving preference. As the learned Government Pleader submits that it takes some more time for the Government to issue notification for filling up of vacancies and as it is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Rajasekhar Reddy that there are several vacancies such as Fair Price Shop Nos.525, 532, 535, 539, 567, 575, 576, 600, 601, 613 and 541, the respondents are hereby directed to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment as fair price shop dealer on temporary basis in any of these vacancies till a notification is issued, if really they are vacant. 6 Accordingly this Contempt Case is closed. -------------- 12.11.2010 Kvsn