IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 9189 of 2007 Between: 1 A. Sathiah S/o. Balamallu R/o. Ramancha Village, Chinakodur Mandal, Medak District. 2 K. Parasuramulu S/o. Narasiah R/o. Gurrala Gondi Village, Chinakodur Mandal, Medak District. 3 Nimmala Ravi S/o. Balaiah R/o. Village Mylaram, Chinakodur Mandal, Medak District. 4 Medikyala Anjaiah S/o.Narayana R/o. Village Malyal Chinakodur Mandal, Medak District. 5 G. Rajesham S/o Ramulu R/o. CHowdaram, Chinakodur Mandal, Medak District. 6 Siddipeta Pochaiah S/o. Rajaiah R/o. Village Gangapur, Chinakodur Mandal, Medak District. .... PETITIONERS AND 1 State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by Secretary, Civil Supplies Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 Commissioner Civil Supplies, Somajiguda, Hyderabad. 3 District Collector, Medak District, at Sangareddy 4 Revenue Divisional Officer, Siddipet, Medak District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the fourth respondent in issuing the notification vide No. B/2763/2006 dt. 20-4- 2007 inviting applications for filing the alleged existing vacancies in shops presently run by the petitioners in their respective villages in Chinakodur Mandal, Medak District under the guise of reservation as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and violative of principles of natural justice and set aside the same and pass such other order or orders as the Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper under the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:SMT.D.PRAMADA Counsel for the Respondents : ASST.GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following : O R D E R: This writ petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus to set aside the proceedings dated 20-04-2007 issued by respondent No.4 whereby he sought to appoint fair price shop dealers in respect of different fair price shops in the Siddipet Revenue Division of Medak District. By proceedings dated 01-08-2002 the petitioners were appointed as fair price shop dealers. The petitioners’ authorizations, which were evidently issued for a period of two years, were being renewed from time to time and the last of such renewals were made in April, 2006 to be valid up to 31-03-2008. The grievance of the petitioners is that though they were appointed on a regular basis, by limiting the tenure of authorization, their authorizations are being renewed from time to time once in every two years and while their authorizations were subsisting, the impugned notification was issued treating as if there were vacancies to appoint fair price shop dealers. On behalf of the respondents, respondent No.2 filed a counter-affidavit wherein it is averred that in the year 2002 notifications were issued for appointment of fair price shop dealers for various fair price shops reserved for scheduled tribes/physically handicapped categories as the case may be, that as eligible candidates were not available, the petitioners were appointed temporarily subject to the condition that their appointments shall be terminated without any notice and that in terms of the said condition stipulated in the orders of appointment of petitioners, the impugned notification has been issued treating the entire revenue division as a unit and working out the percentage of reservations. It is the case of the respondent that as per the reservation particulars, there are number of vacancies to be filled up with S.C/B.C category candidates. They pleaded that the petitioners who are merely temporary dealers have no vested right to continue as fair price shop dealers. I have heard Smt D.Pramada, learned counsel for the petitioners, and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. The averment that the petitioners were appointed in the vacancies earmarked for scheduled tribes/physically handicapped categories due to non-availability of the candidates is not denied by the petitioners. The petitioners have not filed orders by which they were appointed. However, they have not controverted the averment contained in the counter-affidavit that in their appointment orders a condition was stipulated that their appointments were purely temporary and that they will be terminated at any time without any notice. But, however the fact remains that while issuing the authorizations at the end of every two years, there is no condition that their authorizations will be terminated without any notice. The endorsement that was last made in April, 2006 shows that the same was made till 31-03-2008. Thus, the renewal made in favour of the petitioners is unconditional. Therefore, irrespective of whether a condition was stipulated in the appointment orders or not, the authorizations standing in the name of the petitioners as renewed in April, 2006 cannot be brought to an end or terminated before the expiry of the period for which they were renewed, in the absence of any power being reserved in the respondents while renewing the petitioners’ authorizations. Therefore, I find force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the impugned notification issued treating existence of vacancies cannot be sustained. I find another anomaly in the procedure followed by the respondents. Assuming that the respondents are entitled to terminate the authorizations of the petitioners without notice, the respondents have not pleaded that any such termination was made by passing an order. Until the petitioners’ authorizations are terminated, no vacancies can be said to arise for issuing the impugned notification. Therefore, the impugned notification is quashed. Since the period of authorizations of the petitioners is expiring by 31-03-2008, respondents are free to take steps to fill up the vacancies either by considering the applications of the petitioners for renewal or by notifying the vacancies in accordance with the prescribed procedure. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. _____________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date:05-03-2008 vrn ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1 State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by Secretary, Civil Supplies Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 Commissioner Civil Supplies, Somajiguda, Hyderabad. 3 District Collector, Medak District, at Sangareddy 4 Revenue Divisional Officer, Siddipet, Medak District. 5 2CCs to the Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. 6 2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{VSMI}