HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No.21088 of 2010 Date: August 24, 2010 Between: Smt. T. Sujatha, W/o.T. Narasimha Reddy, Occ: F.P. Shop Dealer, R/o. Paidipalle Village, Channubatla Post, Tirupathi Rural Mandal, Chittoor District … Petitioner And The District Collector, Chittoor District, and three others … Respondents Order: The petitioner, a Fair-Price Shop Dealer, has filed this writ petition questioning proceedings Roc.K/2255/2010, dated 12-08-2010, issued by the third respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupathi, Chittoor District. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it is stated that the petitioner was appointed as temporary dealer of the Fair Price Shop in Paidipalli village, Chittoor District, vide proceedings Roc.No.C/1972/2001, dated 13- 09-2001, consequent upon the resignation of the then dealer one Smt. I. Bharati and since then she has been continuing as such. While things stood thus, the third respondent issued the impugned proceedings/notification calling for applications from candidates belonging to B.C. (women) category for appointment of dealer for the Fair Price Shop in Paidipalli village. It is the case of the petitioner that she has been continuing as dealer for the shop in question since the year 2001 and though she made several representations to continue her as dealer, respondents are proceeding to appoint a new dealer pursuant to the impugned notification. I have perused a copy of the proceedings Roc.No.C/1972/2001, appointing the petitioner as dealer. A perusal of the same would make it clear that in view of the resignation of the then dealer, the petitioner was appointed on temporary basis to avoid inconvenience to the cardholders. In the very proceedings, it is made clear that appointment of the petitioner is made purely on temporary basis until notification is issued to fill up the vacancy on permanent basis. As much as the appointment of the petitioner as dealer for the shop in question is purely temporary, she has no right to seek continuance of her dealership. Merely because she made representations to continue her as dealer, that will not preclude the respondents from taking steps to appoint a dealer on permanent basis pursuant to the impugned notification. In view of the fact tat the petitioner is admittedly a temporary dealer, she is also not entitled to a notice before issuance of the impugned notification. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any valid ground to interfere with the impugned notification. In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to continue the petitioner as dealer for the shop in question till selections are made and a regular dealer is appointed pursuant to the impugned notification. No order as to costs. ___________________ (R. SUBHASH REDDY, J) August 24, 2010 MRR