IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY THURSDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY WRIT PETITION No.4814 of 2008 Between: Raja Dwakra Group, Gudiwada, Rep. by its Group Leader, Smt. G.Usha Rani W/o. Venkateswar Reddy, Dealer of Shop No.35 ( Temporary ), At 14th Ward, Gudiwada ( V & M ), Krishna District. .... PETITIONER AND 1 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Gudiwada, Krishna Dist. 2 The Tahsildar, Gudiwada ( M ) at Gudiwada, Krishna District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the petitioner: Sri M.M.M.Srinivasa Rao. Counsel for the respondents: Asst. Govt. Pleader for Civil Supplies. This Court made the following: ORDER:- This Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus to set aside order dated 15-2-2008 passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Gudiwada (respondent No.1 herein), whereby he set aside order dated 28-12- 2007 passed by the Tahsildar, Gudiwada (respondent No.2 herein) appointing the petitioner as a temporary fair price shop dealer. There is a vacancy of fair price shop bearing No.35 in Ward No.14 of Gudiwada town. Respondent No.2 by proceedings dated 28-12-2007 appointed the petitioner - a DWACRA Group, Gudiwada – as a temporary fair price shop dealer in respect thereof. Respondent No.1, on coming to know about the same, set aside the said order by the impugned proceedings on the ground that respondent No.2 has no control or jurisdiction or authority to appoint a fair price shop dealer, even temporarily. These proceedings are assailed in the present Writ Petition. Heard Sri M.M.M.Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. At the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner has not disputed that respondent No.2 has no power or jurisdiction to appoint a temporary dealer and that such a power is vested only in respondent No.1. The learned counsel, however, submitted that the impugned order is not preceded by any notice. I have not felt inclined to accept the said submission, because, admittedly, respondent No.2 has no jurisdiction, whatsoever, to appoint the petitioner as a temporary fair price shop dealer and the petitioner’s appointment is, therefore, void. The petitioner, who is a beneficiary of such a void order, has no right to insist that she is entitled to be given a notice before such a void order is cancelled by the competent authority. In my considered view, principles of natural justice cannot be stretched to such an extent. For the above-mentioned reasons, the Writ Petition is dismissed. --------------------------------------- C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J 7-3-2008 MNR