IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 2529 of 2008 Between: G. Madana Mohan, s/o. Somasekhar, R/o. Gongatipalli Village, Lepakshi Mandal, Ananthapur District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, Ananthapur District, Anantapur. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Penukonda, Ananthapur District. 3 The Tahasildar, Lepakshi Mandal, Lepakshi, Ananthapur District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in issuing notiﬁcation vide Rc.No. 43/2008/C dated 24-1-2008 to ﬁll up the post of Fair Price Shop Dealer of Gongatipalli Village, Lepakshi Mandal, Ananthapur District without issuing any notice to the petitioner or not providing any opportunity to apply for the said post on permanent basis is arbitrary, illegal, and contrary to the provisions of AP State Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2001 and consequently direct the respondents to continue the petitioner as F.P Shop Dealer of Gongatipalli Village, Lepakshi Mandal, Ananthapur District, and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.NARAHARI BABU Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM W.P.No. 2529 of 2008 Oral Order: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies for respondents. The writ petition is misconceived as it is ambiguous. The petitioner was granted a temporary authorization in respect of the Fair Price Shop of Gongatipalli village, Lepakshi Mandal, Ananthapur District in 2006. He is continuing as such. On 24-01- 2008 the 2nd respondent notiﬁed Gongatipalli Fair Price Shop and called for applications for grant of permanent authorization for the said shop. The notiﬁcation enumerates that the grant of authorization is reserved to BC (Woman). The petitioner assails the notiﬁcation on several grounds. At one stage he contends that since he is the temporary authorizee he should have been granted the authorization on a permanent basis and that the 2nd respondent acted illegally in issuing the impugned notiﬁcation without notice and opportunity to the petitioner, since he has the requisite qualiﬁcation for grant of a permanent authorization. He challenges the reservation in favour of BC (Woman) on the ground that such reservation deprives of him of the opportunity to apply for grant of a permanent authorization. The petitioner does not canvass any facts in support of his challenge to the reservation of the Fair Price Shop for BC (Woman); nor is it contended that the reservation violates any law. In a counter aﬃdavit ﬁled by the 2nd respondent in the writ petition, it is stated that in accordance with the scheme of reservations spelt out in Go.Ms.No. 53 Consumer Aﬀairs, Food and Civil Supplies (C.S.I.) Department dated 06-10-2003 and in view of the statistical position of the Fair Price Shops in Penukonda division, the Fair Price Shop in question was reserved for BC (Woman). The counter aﬃdavit denies any entitlement of the petitioner to any notice or opportunity before issuing of such notification. The petitioner does not plead any legal position in support of his grievance nor any legal foundation in support of the relief claimed. There are no merits. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed, but in the circumstances without costs. ____________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J Dated: 25-08-2008 pvks