IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.12195 of 2008 Between: K. Nayeem Basha S/o Late K. Abdul Gani R/o. H.No. 16-154, Yemmiganur, Adoni Mandal, Kurnool District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Joint Collector, Kurnool, Kurnool District. 2 The Revenue Divisional Oficer, Adoni, Kurnool District. 3 The Tahsildar, Yemmigannur Mandal, Kurnool District. 4 S. Mohaboob Basha S/o. Minnulla Saheb R/o. 16t Ward, Fair Price Shop, Yemmigannur Town Adoni Mandal, Kurnool 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 or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in issuing the proceedings Vide D.Dis (N)/743/2007 dt. 8-3-2008 by appointing the 4th respondent as a Fair Price Shop Dealer of 16th Ward of Yemmigannur Town , Kurnool District as illegal, arbitrary and against the Revised guidelines and procedure for selection and appointment of Fair Price Shop Dealers under A.P.S.C. (R.D.C.S) Order 1973 issued by the Government amended in November 1993 and consequently set aside the same and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.V.RAGHU VEER Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.12195 of 2008 ORDER: It is the case of the petitioner that his father was a Fair Price shop dealer of 16th Ward of Yemmigannur Town for the past 30 years and supplied essential commodities to the cardholders to the utmost satisfaction of the authorities concerned, without any complaints. While so, his father died on 24-07-2007. After the death of his father, he made an application before the 3rd respondent for transfer of the said Fair Price shop in his name. The 3rd respondent also submitted a report, dated 04-08-2007, in Rc.No.B.468/2007, recommending the name of the petitioner for appointment as a Fair Price Shop dealer in the place of his father. Basing on the said report, the 2nd respondent appointed the petitioner as a temporary fair price shop dealer vide proceedings, dated 09-08-2007 and thereafter, the 2nd respondent issued notification on 30-11-2007 calling upon the applications to appoint regular Fair Price shop dealer. It is stated that without considering his application for transfer of the said dealership in favour of the petitioner, he being the legal heir of the deceased dealer, the 2nd respondent appointed the 4th respondent as fair price shop dealer through order, dated 08-03-2008. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Joint Collector on 25-03-2008 along with stay application, but the appellate authority has not considered and disposed of the said appeal. It is the case of the petitioner that as per the guidelines and procedure for selection and appointment of fair price shop dealers under A.P.S.C. (RDCS) Order, 1973, mentioned at 1.2.6 (iv), legal heirs in case of death, old age or disease, either wife or daughter or daughter in law are entitled to be considered for transfer of authorization, if they are otherwise eligible. Learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that as per clause 5 (iv) of A.P.State Public Distribution System Control Order, 2001, the authorization is not transferable. The Commissioner also has taken a same view and issued circular in Ref.No.N5/10045/2005, dated 27-11-2007, stating that the legal heirs of the fair price shop dealer have no right to be appointed as Fair Price Shop dealer. Further, as per clause 5 (iv) of A.P.State Public Distribution System Control Order, 2001, the authorization is not transferable. I am not inclined to express any opinion with regard to the rival contentions. As it is stated that the appeal is pending before the 1st respondent, the 1st respondent is directed to consider and dispose of the appeal filed against the impugned order, after hearing the petitioner as well as the 4th respondent, as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that while the petitioner was working as a temporary dealer, he remitted a sum of Rs.54,900/- on 11-03-2008 to the D.M. A.P.S.C.S.C.Limited, Kurnool, for supply of stocks, but due to the appointment of the 4th respondent, the stocks were not supplied and the said amount was also not refunded. If that be so, on an application made by the petitioner before respondents 2 and 3, they are directed to refund the amount remitted by the petitioner without any undue delay. With the above observations, the writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. __________ 13-06-2008 Prv ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{VSMI}