THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.12338 of 2007 Dated 16th June, 2010 Between: Y.Salma …Petitioner And The Joint Collector, Chittoor and another. …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri S.S. Bhatt Counsel for the respondents: Government Pleader for Civil Supplies The Court made the following: ORDER: At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, having regard to the nature of the dispute raised in the writ petition. This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the notification dated 17.05.2007 as illegal and unconstitutional. The petitioner sought for a consequential direction to the respondents to grant fair price shop dealership licence to him in respect of the fair price shop No.19 (U) of Madanapalle Town. Heard Sri S.S. Bhatt, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. The father of the petitioner was a permanent fair price shop dealer during the period from 1962 to 2005. Consequent on his death, the petitioner was appointed as temporary dealer considering the fact that she was the daughter of the deceased permanent dealer. Later on, respondent No.2 has issued impugned notification calling for applications for filling up the vacancy on permanent basis. The petitioner claimed to have filed appeal before respondent No.2 against the said notification. On the purported ground that the stay application filed by her in the appeal was not disposed of, she filed the present writ petition. This Court, by order dated 14.06.2007, permitted all the proceedings in pursuant to the impugned notification to go on, but stayed finalizing of appointment. At the hearing, Sri S.S. Bhatt, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as the petitioner’s father was permanent dealer for a number for decades, it would be unjust to deny the petitioner, permanent appointment. Learned counsel, however, fairly conceded that neither a statutory provision nor a scheme framed by respondent No.1 exists providing for appointment of legal heirs of permanent dealers in place of deceased dealers. In the absence of any such statutory provision or scheme, the petitioner has no vested right to insist on her appointment as a successor to the deceased permanent dealer. It is the prerogative of the State to select the dealers in accordance with the procedure laid down by it. Therefore, no exception can be taken to the action of the respondents in issuing impugned notification for appointment of fair price shop dealer, on permanent basis, in place of the deceased fair price shop dealer. For the above mentioned reasons, I do not find any merit in the Writ Petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, interim order dated 14.06.2007 in W.P.M.P.No.15376 of 2007 is vacated and W.P.M.P.No.15376 of 2007 filed by the petitioner and W.V.M.P.No.2989 of 2007 filed by the respondents are also dismissed as infructuous. ________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 16th June, 2010 GHN