THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION NO.23710 OF 2006 Between : R. Subramanyam, S/o. Late Rajaiah, Fair Price Shop Dealer for Devaragudipalli Village, Vedurukuppam Mandal, Chittoor District. …... PETITIONER And 1. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Chittoor, and another. …....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the petitioner: Sri V. Jagapathi Counsel for the respondents: G.P. for Civil Supplies. The Court made the following. ORDER: Heard Sri V. Jagapathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. This writ petition has been filed seeking to declare the action of the 2nd respondent-Mandal Revenue Officer, Vedurukuppam Mandal, Chittoor District, in not permitting the petitioner to lift the essential commodities, as illegal and consequently to direct the 2nd respondent to release the commodities in respect of his fair price shop in terms of the proceedings of the 1st respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, Chittoor, dated 23.10.2006. The petitioner is an authorized fair price shop dealer in respect of the shop located at Devaragudipalli Village, Vedurukuppam Mandal. It is stated that in order to contest to the post of Sarpanch, he submitted a letter dated 19.07.2006 to the 2nd respondent that in the event of his being elected as Sarpanch, he would resign as the fair price shop dealer. It is stated that he lost the election and approached the 2nd respondent seeking release of the commodities meant for his shop. As the 2nd respondent was not inclined to release the stock, he approached the 1st respondent and the 1st respondent issued orders in Roc (B) 2304/2006, dated 23.10.2006 reappointing him as the dealer. He again approached the 2nd respondent for permission to lift the stock meant for the Month of November 2006. As the 2nd respondent was still not inclined to release the stock, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that pursuant to the interim orders in W.P.M.P.No.30236 of 2006, dated 15.11.2006, the 2nd respondent has released stock and the petitioner is still running the shop. The learned counsel would also submit that the authorization issued to the petitioner is still in force. It is therefore contended that the respondents are bound to release the commodities so long as the authorization is valid. It appears that the petitioner was restored as the dealer by orders of the 1st respondent dated 23.10.2006 and it is asserted that his authorization has been restored and he is running the shop. That being so, the respondents are directed to release the stocks, which they are bound to, in favour of the petitioner and the petitioner is entitled to distribute the commodities so long as his authorization is valid without being cancelled/suspended. With the above observations the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J. 14th December, 2010 Js.