THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.32360 of 2010 DT.23.12.2010 Between: Smt.Parveen Begum … Petitioner And The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District and others … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Raja Gopallavan Tayi Counsel for respondents: AGP for Civil Supplies The Court made the following ORDER: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not appointing the petitioner as fair price shop dealer of Basheerabad III Division, Vikarabad, Ranga Reddy District, as illegal and arbitrary. I have heard Sri Raja Gopallavan Tayi, learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies for the respondents. The averments contained in the affidavit filed by the petitioner in support of the writ petition show that she is one of the applicants for appointment as fair price shop dealer of the above-mentioned fair price shop, that she was interviewed along with other candidates on 22.12.2009 by respondent No.2 and that she was selected. By his memo, dated 23.12.2009, respondent No.2 called upon the petitioner to submit her explanation on the aspect of involvement of her husband in a criminal case registered as Crime No.18 of 2007 for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 324, 326, 504 and 509 IPC. The petitioner has evidently submitted her explanation, dated 01.01.2010, wherein she has stated that her husband was falsely implicated in the criminal case, that she satisfied the eligibility criteria for appointment and that having been selected, there is no justification to deny her appointment. The petitioner further pleaded that while respondent No.2 has not taken any decision, her husband was acquitted by the judgment of the learned Magistrate of I Class, Tandur, Ranga Reddy District in C.C.No.339 of 2007. She has filed a copy of the said judgment in the writ petition, a perusal of which, shows that her husband, Abdul Rajak, figured as accused No.5 and the learned Magistrate while convicting only accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offence under Section 324 IPC, found other accused including the petitioner’s husband not guilty. The question whether a person whose family member is involved in a criminal case is disqualified to be appointed as fair price shop dealer needs examination. However, the need for such examination in the present case is obviated on account of the fact that the petitioner’s husband was acquitted of the criminal charges. Therefore, this has become an academic issue in the present case. Inasmuch as the petitioner is stated to have been selected and her appointment has been put on hold on account of involvement of her husband in a criminal case, having regard to his acquittal, there can be no legal impediment for the petitioner’s appointment as fair price shop dealer. For the above-mentioned reasons, the writ petition is allowed directing respondent No.2 to appoint the petitioner as fair price shop dealer of Basheerabad III Division, Vikarabad, Ranga Reddy District, if she was selected in pursuance of notice, dated 03.12.2009. Such appointment order shall be issued within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.41118 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) Date: 23.12.2010 VGB