IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No: 5867 of 2008 Between: Ananthula Veeranna, S/o. Mallaiah Husnabad Mandal, Karimnagar District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Karimnagar, Karimnagar District. 2 The Tahsildar, Husnabad Mandal, Karimnagar District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri T. Mahender Rao Counsel for the Respondents : Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies O R D E R: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.2 in not allotting the scheduled commodities to the petitioner in respect of fair price shop No.0832 of Mallampally Village, Husnabad Mandal, Karimngar District as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and violative of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and also principles of natural justice. The petitioner sought for a direction to the respondents to release the essential commodities to him in respect of the said fair price shop. Heard Sri T. Mahender Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. In his affidavit, the petitioner claimed that in the year 1998, respondent No.1 issued authorization to him for distribution of essential commodities in respect of the fair price shop situated at Mallampally. In November 2001, the Mandal Revenue Inspector inspected the petitioner’s shop and he evidently submitted a report to respondent No.2 and that since then, the latter stopped release of essential commodities to the petitioner for distribution. The petitioner further averred that during March 2004, his authorization was renewed and is valid up to 31.03.2008. The grievance of the petitioner is that since the year 2001, respondent No.2 has not been supplying the essential commodities to him for distribution, though his authorization was renewed in the year 2004. He claimed that he made representation on 06.11.2007 to respondent No.1 for resumption of essential commodities and that no action has been taken thereon. Having carefully considered the averments contained in the affidavit and the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the view that the writ petition is wholly misconceived and is liable to be dismissed for more reasons than one. The petitioner, on his own showing, is not permitted to distribute the essential commodities since the year 2001. As many as seven years passed by since then, but the petitioner has done precious little in asserting his right for distribution of essential commodities. Even though the petitioner claimed that his authorization was renewed in the year 2004, he has not questioned the authority of the respondents in not supplying the essential commodities to him, after renewal of his authorization. The validity of the authorization, even according to the petitioner, is coming to an end in a few days from now i.e. 31.03.2008 and at this stage, the petitioner claims that he made a representation on 06.11.2007 to respondent No.1 for resumption of supplies. The law is well settled that this Court would not extend its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in favour of a person, who slept over his rights for unduly long period and unless the petitioner explains the inordinate delay in sleeping over his alleged rights, this Court would not intervene in his favour (See State of M. P. v. Bhailal Bhai[1] Trilokchand and Motichand v. M.B. Munshi[2], Rabindra Nath v. Union of India[3]). Apart from the unexplained delay in the petitioner approaching this Court, the fact that the validity of his authorization is expiring in less than a week’s time, further dissuades me to entertain this writ petition and dispose it of on merits. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. However, it is made clear that this order would not preclude the petitioner from seeking renewal of the authorization and as and when such renewal is made, he is at liberty to approach the respondents for resumption of supplies. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No. 7641 of 2008 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is also dismissed. (C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) 19th March 2008 Note: Issue CC in two days ksld [1] AIR 1964 SC 1006 [2] (1969) 1 SCC 110 [3] AIR 1970 SC 470