HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.13155 of 2008 Date : 30.08.2011 Between : Vadlamudi Rama Rao. …..Petitioner And The Joint Collector, Guntur & others. …..Respondents HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.13155 of 2008 ORDER : This writ petition is filed with the prayer, which reads as under : “to pass an order or direction or writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents No.1 to 3 in not continuing the petitioner as Fair Price Shop Dealer of Chittapuram village, Epuru Mandal, Guntur District and permitting the fourth respondent to distribute the essential commodities to the cardholders of Chittapuram village, as bad, illegal, arbitrary, unjust and against the principles of natural Justice and consequently direct respondent Nos.1 to 3 to continue the petitioner as Fair Price Shop Dealer of Chittapuram village, Epuru Mandal, Guntur District.” The petitioner was appointed as a fair price shop dealer for distribution of essential commodities in Chittapuram village of Epuru Mandal in Guntur District. It is the case of the petitioner that in the month of March 2006, the petitioner fell sick, as he was affected with Hepatitis Jaundice, and made a request to make temporary arrangement for distribution of essential commodities. After regaining health, the petitioner has made an application for continuation of supplies on his authorisation, but when supplies were not made to his shop, this writ petition was filed in 2008. At the stage of admission, this Court granted interim directions, directing the respondents to supply essential commodities to the petitioner’s shop. The said order continued all along and though the writ petition is of 2008, no counter affidavit is filed by the respondents. When the matter is taken up, it is submitted by the learned Government Pleader that the petitioner is now continued as a dealer. When the petitioner is appointed on permanent basis, supplies cannot be discontinued without passing an order either suspending or terminating the licence by way of cancellation proceedings. As it is stated that the authorization granted to the petitioner is neither suspended nor cancelled, there appears no reason for not restoring supplies on the authorization held by the petitioner. Taking into account the interim order passed by this Court and in the absence of any counter affidavit rebutting the allegations of the petitioner, I deem it appropriate to direct the respondents to continue the supply of essential commodities on the authorization held by the petitioner. However, it is made clear that if the petitioner violates the conditions of authorization under the provisions of the Control Order, this order will not preclude the respondents from taking appropriate action. The writ petition is allowed with the directions referred above. No costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 30th August 2011 ajr