IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.14509 of 2008 Between: Smt. Thota Lalitha, W/o.Narasimha Rao, Aged 34 years, Occ: Fair Price Shop Dealer, Shop No.1 (under suspension), Billupadu Village, Tallada Mandal, Khammam District … Petitioner And The Revenue Divisional Officer, Khammam, Khammam District, and another … Respondents Order: The petitioner seeks a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not allowing her to conduct Fair Price Shop business in Shop No.1 of Billupadu village, Tallada Mandal, Khammam District even though there is no order suspending or canceling her authorization as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner claims to have been appointed as Dealer with regard to the aforesaid shop in the year 1996. It is stated that supply of essential commodities to the shop has been stopped with effect from September, 2001 on the ground that proceedings under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short, ‘the Act’) are pending which were initiated based on the inspection conducted by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Tallada on 01-09-2001. The Tahsildar, Thallada, Khammam Distirct has filed counter-affidavit on behalf of the respondents. In the counter- affidavit, it is stated that the authorization of the petitioner was valid only upto 31-03-2004 and no renewal was effected beyond the said period in view of initiation of proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act against her. It is further stated that final orders were passed in M.C.No.58/2001 on 27-12- 2002 by the Joint Collector in the said proceedings holding that the charges leveled against the petitioner and violations of the conditions of the authorization are proved. As much as the authorization of the petitioner was valid only upto 31-03-2004, no directions can be issued at this stage to supply essential commodities to her based on the authorization which is not at all in force. However, if the petitioner is entitled to renewal of the authorization held by her earlier, it would be open to her to approach the respondents seeking renewal of the authorization. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ___________________ (R. SUBHASH REDDY, J) October 27, 2010 MRR