IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.5180 of 2008 Between: Daram Ravinder, S/o.Manikyam, R/o. Thadla Singaram, Village of Nutanakal Revenue Mandal, Nalgonda District. ...PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, (Civil Supplies), Nalgonda District, Nalgonda. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Suryapet, Nalgonda District. 3 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Natanakal Revenue Mandal, Nalgonda District. 4 Sri Marikanti Sanjeeva, S/o.Pitchaiah, R/o.Thadla Singaram Village, of Natanakal Revenue Mandal, Nalgonda 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 and declare the action of the Respondent No.2 the RDO in canceling the authorization of the Petitioner which is valid up to 31st March '08 vide impugned proceedings No.D/123/06 dt. 05.03.2007 as illegal Arbitrary and consequently set aside the same and pass such other orders and further orders in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.K.ASHOK REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.5180 of 2008 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus to set aside proceedings dated 05.03.2007 issued by respondent No.2 whereby he appointed respondent No.4 as Fair Price Shop Dealer of Thadla Singaram Village of Nutankal Revenue Mandal, Nalgonda District. The petitioner was initially appointed as a temporary Fair Price Shop Dealer on 14.06.2004 for a period of two years and his authorization was renewed for another period of two years. According to the petitioner, its validity is coming to an end on 31.03.2008. Respondent No.2, who issued a notification to fill up the vacancy on permanent basis, passed the impugned order appointing respondent No.4 as permanent Fair Price Shop Dealer. Questioning the said order, the petitioner filed appeal No.CS1/570/2007 on 30.03.2007 before respondent No.1. The petitioner claims that pending the said appeal, respondent No.1 passed order dated 30.03.2007 directing respondent No.2 to comply with the interim order passed by this Court on 16.03.2007 in W.P.M.P.No.6905 of 2007 in W.P.No.5423 of 2007. The grievance of the petitioner is that though his authorization is valid till 31.03.2008, respondent No.2 appointed respondent No.4 on permanent basis, even though no vacancy was in existence. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents, I am of the view that it is not necessary for me to decide the issues raised by the petitioner in this Writ Petition on merits since on the petitioner’s own showing, the appeal filed him before the Joint Collector {The District Collector (Civil Supplies), respondent No.1} is pending. I, therefore, feel it appropriate that respondent No.1 shall dispose of the appeal at an early date after hearing the petitioner on merits. The Writ Petition is, therefore, disposed of directing respondent No.1 to decide the appeal filed by the petitioner within a period of eight {8} weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till the disposal of the appeal, status quo as on today shall be maintained with regard to the distribution of the essential commodities in respect of the Fair Price Shop in question. _______________________ (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) 17th March 2008 Note: CC by one week B/O RRB