THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.9240 of 2011 Dated 07th April, 2011 Between: G.Kavitha …Petitioner And The District Collector, Civil Supplies, Nalgonda District and another …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri K.Ashok Reddy Counsel for respondents: AGP for Civil Supplies The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed purely on an apprehension that the petitioner’s case may not be considered in view of the alleged interference of the local MLA in the matter of appointment of fair price shop dealer of Dasigudem Village, Suryapet Revenue Mandal, Nalgonda District. The petitioner, a representative of DWCRA group, was appointed as temporary dealer for a period of three months on 15.02.2006. Even though her dealership was not extended, she was being continued until December, 2010 when the supply of stocks was stopped and another dealer was kept in-charge of the fair price shop in question. The petitioner has filed W.P.No.30848 of 2010, which was disposed of by this Court with the direction that immediate steps for notifying the vacancy and filling up the same on permanent basis shall be taken and that the petitioner shall be continued as temporary dealer till the vacancy is filled up on permanent basis. Accordingly, while continuing the petitioner, respondent No.2 issued notice, dated 24.03.2011, inviting applications for appointment of permanent dealer. The petitioner alleged that though her application was received after great persuasion, there is no likelihood of respondent No.2 dispassionately considering the same. The basis for the petitioner’s apprehension is the alleged interference by the local MLA, who is allegedly bringing influence on respondent No.2, to appoint his own nominee instead of selecting a candidate on merits. In my opinion, except making this allegation, the petitioner failed to substantiate the same by filing any material in support thereof. Respondent No.2, being the appointing authority, is not expected to be amenable for external influences. Therefore, I cannot accept the petitioner’s plea that her case may not be considered on merits. If the petitioner’s case is not properly considered, she is entitled to avail her further remedies after completion of the selection process. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.11444 of 2011 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 07th April, 2011 VGB