IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.6766 of 2008 BETWEEN M. Danaiah. ... PETITIONER AND The District Collector, West Godavari District at Eluru and three others. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. P. VISHNU VARDHAN REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following order: ORDER: This writ petition is filed questioning the validity of the order dated 04.04.2007 issued by the first respondent in Roc.CS-I/3/Revision/2006 canceling the authorization of the petitioner and seeking further direction to the respondents to continue the petitioner as fair price shop dealer of shop No.4 in Duvva village, Tanuku Mandal, West Godavari district. 2. Petitioner was an authorized fair price shop dealer of the aforesaid shop. While so, the Mandal Revenue Officer, Tanuku, alleging that the petitioner is mis-utilizing the essential commodities illegally by drawing 8 quintals of rice and 1440 liters of kerosene without showing balances in backlog stocks during the months from January 2003 to August 2003 and that the petitioner is not maintaining true and correct accounts, resulting in huge loss to Government exchequer, submitted a report to the Revenue Divisional Officer. Based on the said report, the RDO initiated proceedings against the petitioner and after issuing show cause notice and considering the explanation filed by the petitioner, by order dated 03.01.2005 cancelled the authorization of the petitioner. Though the petitioner carried the matter by way of appeal before the Joint Collector, the same ended in dismissal. Further, the petitioner preferred a revision before the District Collector and the revisional authority by the impugned order confirmed the orders of the Joint Collector and the Revenue Divisional Officer. 3. Pending the cancellation proceedings, it is submitted by the learned Government Pleader that a temporary dealer is appointed and being continued as such. 4. When the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner requests that the respondents be directed to notify the vacancy on permanent basis and fill up the same. 5. Though the petitioner has questioned the validity of the impugned order, he has not pressed to judge the validity of the said order and requested to dispose of the matter directing the respondents to fill up the vacancy on permanent basis by notifying the vacancy as per the Andhra Pradesh State Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2001. When the dealership of the petitioner is cancelled and confirmed by the revisional authority, a stopgap arrangement can be made by appointing the temporary dealer but the same cannot be continued indefinitely. In that view of the matter, the request of the petitioner is accepted. The writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the third respondent that if the vacancy, caused on account of the cancellation of the authorization of the petitioner, is not filled as on today, the same shall be filled up by notifying the vacancy on permanent basis within a period of three (3) months from today by following due procedure. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J September 7, 2011 DSK