THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.25337 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioner, claiming to be the dealer of Chittapara-I Fair Price Shop, Chittapara village, Gudipala mandal, Chittoor district, filed the present writ petition assailing the action of the authorities, respondents 1 to 3, in not supplying him essential commodities for distribution through the said Fair Price Shop. The fourth respondent herein was appointed as the dealer for the subject Fair Price Shop on 18-08-2005. As she failed to lift the essential commodities for distribution regularly, the petitioner was appointed as a temporary dealer in her place. In the meanwhile, upon the petition submitted by the fourth respondent, her dealership was restored upon payment of a fine. Aggrieved by such restoration, the petitioner approached this Court by way of the present writ petition. However, his main prayer in the writ petition is only limited to the inaction on the part of the respondent authorities in supplying essential commodities to him for distribution through the subject Fair Price Shop. This Court, by interim order dated 18-11-2008, directed the respondent authorities to supply essential commodities to the petitioner, if his authorization was neither suspended nor cancelled as on that day. The Tahsildar, Gudipala mandal, Chittoor district, the third respondent in the writ petition, filed a counter on behalf of the respondent authorities stating that upon action being taken against the fourth respondent dealer of the subject Fair Price Shop, the then Tahsildar, Gudipala mandal, Chittor district, appointed the petitioner on a temporary basis to avoid inconvenience to the card holders. It is pointed out that the then Tahsildar, instead of attaching the Fair Price Shop to an adjacent Fair Price Shop, selected the petitioner for such appointment on temporary basis against the norms. It is relevant to note that the petitioner was one of the un- successful applicants in the selection for award of the subject dealership in which the fourth respondent proved successful, whereby she was appointed as a dealer under order 18-08-2005. The counter goes on to state that after the restoration of her dealership, the fourth respondent has been functioning as the dealer of the subject Fair Price Shop since November, 2008. The aforestated sequence of events clearly demonstrates that the petitioner’s appointment as a temporary dealer was itself irregular. Unsuccessful in securing the dealership in the selection process, it appears that the petitioner got the temporary appointment through back-door methods. Be that as it may, after restoration of the dealership of the fourth respondent, which remains unchallenged by the petitioner, it is not open to him to seek to continue as the temporary dealer in respect of the same Fair Price Shop. The writ petition is therefore devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. The interim order dated 18-11-2008 shall stand vacated. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J February 11, 2011. Pn THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.25337 of 2008 February 11, 2011