THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI W.P.No.25659 of 2011 Between: Kajjapu Narender PETITIONER And 1. District Collector, Nizamabad District and others. RESPONDENTS Counsel for the petitioners: M/s. Ch. Dhanamjaya Counsel for the respondents: G.P. for Civil Supplies Court made the following ORDER: The petitioner has filed this writ petition assailing the action of the respondents 1 and 2, viz., District Collector, Nizamabad and Revenue Divisional Officer, Nizamabad, in not cancelling the fair price shop authorization granted in favour of the 4th respondent herein vide proceedings B.3/7212/87 and the consequential proceedings B.3/8096/95, dated 30.11.1995 transferring the said authorization in favour of the 3rd respondent, who is the wife of the 4th respondent herein, by considering the representations of the petitioner dated 8.08.2011 and 9.08.2011. This writ petition is filed on the premise that the transfer of authorization in favour of the 3rd respondent is illegal and that the petitioner is an intending applicant if a fresh appointment of the dealer is made by cancelling the authorization of the 3rd respondent. The brief facts are that the 4th respondent, who is the husband of the 3rd respondent, was appointed as fair price shop dealer of shop No.44, Nizamabad, in the year 1987 and the same was transferred on medical grounds in favour of the 3rd respondent on 05.11.1992. The 3rd respondent has been running the shop ever since then on obtaining renewal from time to time. The petitioner submitted representations dated 8.08.2011 and 09.08.2011 to the 2nd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, Nizamabad, and the Joint Collector, Nizamabad, respectively to cancel the authorization contending that the authorization is not transferable. It is the admitted case of the petitioner that transfer of authorization was effected on 05.11.1992 and more than 17 years have elapsed ever since then. The petitioner is said to be aged 36 years. If that be so, he was a minor as on that date and attained majority in the year 1993. Many years have elapsed since the petitioner has attained majority. Nothing has been stated in the affidavit as to why the petitioner has kept quiet for such a long time. He has not even explained when he came to know about the alleged illegality, and no reasons have been assigned for approaching this Court after a long lapse of time. Apparently, the petitioner has no bona fides in seeking cancellation of authorization of the 3rd respondent. The writ petition suffers from serious laches, without any reasons assigned whatsoever. I am therefore not inclined to entertain the writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission. No costs. _________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J. 14th September, 2011. Js/Ak