IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No : 5040 of 2008 Between: B.Nageswara Rao S/o.B Sri Ramulu, D.No.10-93 Gouda Street, Macherla Town Guntur Dist ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Revenue Divisional Officer Narsaraopet,Guntur Dist 2 The Tahsildar Macherla (M) Guntur Dist 3 The Dist Collector Guntur Dist .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner : Ms. A. Jana Kumari Counsel for the Respondents : AGP for Civil Supplies The Court made the following O R D E R: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare notification dated 21.01.2008 issued by respondent No.1 as illegal and arbitrary. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies for the respondents. Vide proceedings issued in the month of September 2004, the petitioner’s authorization was suspended by respondent No.1. The petitioner questioned the order of suspension in Writ Petition No. 18480 of 2004 and this Court through order dated 08.10.2004 suspended the said order. By order dated 21.04.2005, the said order was made absolute and respondent No.1 was permitted to hold enquiry and pass final orders. On 21.01.2008, respondent No.1 issued notification for appointment of fair price shop dealer, on permanent basis in respect of the shop, which was held by the petitioner. The said notification is questioned in this writ petition on the ground that even without cancelling the authorization held by the petitioner, no order of appointment can be made. When the writ petition came up for admission, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies took time for getting instructions. Today, at the hearing, he placed before this Court a copy of proceedings dated 27.10.2007 passed by respondent No.1, wherein he cancelled the authorization of the petitioner. A perusal of the said order shows that after this Court passed order on 21.04.2005, a show cause notice was issued, on 12.07.2005, to the petitioner to submit his explanation, if any against the proposed cancellation, that he submitted his explanation on 21.07.2005 and on considering the same, respondent No.1 passed order dated 27.10.2007 cancelling his authorization. Hence, I am unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the authorization of her client was not cancelled. As a consequence of cancellation of authorization of the petitioner, the impugned notification has been issued. Unless the petitioner assails the order of respondent No.1 cancelling his authorization, he cannot question the validity of the impugned notification. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. However, liberty is given to the petitioner to file an appeal against order dated 27.10.2007 before the Appellate Authority, if he is so advised. (C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) 24th March 2008 ksld