HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.27265 of 2006 Date : 29.09.2011 Between : Kovuri Edukonda & others. …..Petitioners And The District Collector, Prakasam District & others. …..Respondents HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.27265 of 2006 ORDER : In this writ petition, the petitioners have questioned the orders issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ongole, dated 05.09.2006, issued in Rc.C/1480/2006, and also sought further directions to respondents 1 to 3 to cancel the authorization issued to the 4th respondent to run the fair price shop in Kopparam village. The 4th respondent is appointed as authorized fair price shop dealer for distribution of essential commodities in Kopparam village. It appears, from the month of May 2006 to August 2006, as he has not submitted the Demand Drafts for drawl of essential commodities, his supplies were discontinued. When he made a representation dated 7th August 2006, stating that the essential commodities were not allotted to his shop from May 2006 and he has not submitted the Demand Drafts due to his ill-health, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ongole has passed the impugned order, dated 05.09.2006, issued in Rc.C/1480/2006, addressed to the Mandal Revenue Officer, Santhamanguluru, to allot the essential commodities to the applicant from September 2006 onwards. In this writ petition, it is the grievance of the petitioners, who are cardholders for supply of essential commodities, that the 4th respondent had earlier made an attempt to divert 75 bags of rice and 480 litres of kerosene on 30th of April 2006 to the black market, but when he agreed for resigning, no further steps were taken. In that view of the matter, they have questioned the order, dated 05.09.2006 and also seek further directions to cancel the authorization of the 4th respondent. It is not in dispute that the 4th respondent holds valid authorization as of now, which is governed by the provisions under the A.P. Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008. When the authorization granted to the 4th respondent is in force, he is entitled for supply of essential commodities. As he has explained the reason for not submitting the Demand Drafts from the month of May 2006 onwards, his request was considered and directions were issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer for allotment of essential commodities on the authorization granted to the 4th respondent. In that view of the matter, there appears no reason to invalidate the said proceedings, which are in conformity with the Control Order, provisions of which, govern the grant of authorization and supply of commodities on such authorization. If there are any allegations against respondent No.4 with regard to the alleged diversion of rice, kerosene oil or any other irregularities, while it is open for the petitioners to approach the competent authority, pointing out such irregularities, but they cannot seek directions by way of Mandamus from this Court in this petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India. As evident from the counter that no such irregularity was noticed by the respondents, and as the 4th respondent is holding valid authorization issued to him, I do not find any merit in this writ petition for grant of directions as prayed for. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 29th September 2011 ajr