HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI Writ Petition No.25442 of 2011 Date: 12-9-2011 Between Kavali Jyothi … Petitioner and The District Collector, Chittoor, Chittoor district and 4 others … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI Writ Petition No.25442 of 2011 Order: This writ petition has been filed seeking to issue a Writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 3 and 4 in not receiving the challan to release the stocks and to run the fair price shop allotted to the petitioner as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct them to release the stocks to the petitioner by receiving the challan. 2. Admittedly, petitioner is a temporary fair price shop dealer. She was granted authorization to run the fair price shop of K.V.M.Agraharam village, Vedurukuppam Mandal, vide proceedings of the 3rd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, Chittoor, in L.Dis.B/423/2010 dated 18-02-2010 as ‘stop gap arrangement’ on the condition that no right would accrue to her at the time of filling up of the vacancy on regular basis and that the authorization can be terminated at any time without prior notice. 3. The vacancy had arisen on account of cancellation of the authorization granted in favour of the 5th respondent. The 5th respondent challenged the proceedings of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chittoor, dated 01-3-2005, cancelling his authorization, confirmed by the Joint Collector, Chittoor and the District Collector, Chittoor, in proceedings dated 08-9-2006 and 28-02-2009, respectively, by filing a writ petition in W.P.No.7402 of 2009. This Court considering the matter allowed the writ petition by order dated 15-7-2011 holding the proceedings cancelling the authorization of the 5th respondent are void and non est in the eye of law. Thus, as a result of the same, authorization of the 5th respondent stood restored. Consequently, the petitioner, who was appointed only as ‘stop gap arrangement’ must yield and allow the 5th respondent to continue as dealer. In view of the same, the petitioner has no right to lift the stocks and the 4th respondent has rightly declined to receive the challan for delivery of the stocks to the petitioner. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, states that even though the writ petition filed by the 5th respondent was allowed, there was no positive direction to restore his authorization. 5. The said contention is only misconceived. When once the order is declared as null and void, the authorization automatically stands restored and there is no need to issue a separate direction in that regard. 6. The writ petition is wholly devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed, at the stage of admission. No costs. ___________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J. 12th September, 2011. Ak HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI Writ Petition No.25442 of 2011 12th September, 2011. (Ak)