THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI NISAR AHMAD KAKRU and THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR Dated: 24-08-2010 WRIT APPEAL No. 212 OF 2010 Between: Bathula Annapurna ... APPELLANT AND The Tahsildar, Kanchikacherla Mandal, Kanchikacherla, Krishna District and two others …RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI NISAR AHMAD KAKRU and THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT APPEAL No. 212 OF 2010 JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Shri Nisar Ahmad Kakru) One Bathula Srinivasu, husband of the appellant, the original kerosene hawker licensee under the Andhra Pradesh Petroleum Products (Licensing and Regulation of Supplies) Order 1980 having expired, consequently a claim laid by widow – appellant for transfer of the licence to her name, but of no avail to her, resultantly invocation of writ jurisdiction which came to be dismissed by dint of mandate of clause 5 (12) of the Andhra Pradesh State Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008 (for short ‘2008 Control Order’), which reads: “5. Issue of Authorisation to Fair Price Shops, Nominated Retailers, Hawkers and Establishment:- (12) In the event of the death of the Fair Price Shop dealer/Nominated Retailer/Hawker, the authorization issued shall stand cancelled and the legal heirs of the deceased are not entitled to transfer of authorization.” Contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that 2008 Control Order cannot be applied to the appellant because it does not deal with hawkers of kerosene. To appreciate the contention, it will be apposite to extract clause 2(i) of the 2008 Control Order which reads: “ “ Hawkers” means retail dealers appointed or authorized or approved by or on behalf of State Governments to deal exclusively Public Distribution System kerosene for sale to the card holders and stationed at fair price shop attached.” A glance at the definition of hawkers makes it manifest that sale of kerosene falls very much within the ambit of 2008 Control Order, therefore, there cannot be any doubt about its application to the claim of the appellant. Situated thus, clause 5 (12) of the 2008 Control Order has to apply to the controversy involved in this case fallout being cancellation of authorization on the death of the original authorized person and disentitlement to transfer of authorization to the legal heirs. No other point was raised before us. In the aforementioned backdrop, writ appeal fails. Dismissed. VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J NISAR AHMAD KAKRU, CJ 24-08-2010 K. Shyleshi Note: Furnish copy within one week. B/O K. Shyleshi