HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY W.P.No.26873 of 2010 Date : 19-1-2011 Between : Smt.Ranjana Kabde .. Petitioner And The Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal Secretary, Consumer Affairs, Food & Civil Supplies Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others .. Respondents Counsel for petitioner : Sri V.Ravi Kiran Rao Counsel for respondents : Assistant 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. This Writ Petition is filed for a mandamus to set-aside order dated 7-10-2010 of respondent No.2 whereby he has cancelled the petitioner’s fair price shop authorisation. A perusal of the record shows that the only ground on which the petitioner’s authorisation was cancelled was that at the time of inspection, the shop was being run by a person by name N.Naganath who is not the dealer. Clause 2 of Annexure-I to the A.P. State Public Distribution System (Control) Order 2008 (for short “the Control Order”) envisages that every authorized fair price shop dealer/nominated retailer/hawker shall be held responsible for all the acts of commission or omission in running the shop with the assistance of any family member. It is further provided that if the fair price shop is found being run by any unauthorized person, the same shall be treated as benami and the authorisation of such fair price shop shall be cancelled by the competent authority. In the instant case, the impugned order itself shows that one Sri Naganath is the assistant to the dealer and was found in the shop. The petitioner has specifically pleaded and has filed in support of the said plea, a copy of authorisation issued in Form-II to the effect that Sri N.Naganath s/o.Gangaram is authorized to conduct the shop. In the face of this uncontroverted fact, respondent No.2 has committed a patent illegality in treating the running of the shop by Sri Naganath as benami. Inasmuch as the said Naganath was authorized to assist the petitioner in running the shop, the impugned order is in flagrant violation of the above mentioned clause of the Control Order and the same cannot be sustained in law. For the above mentioned reasons, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order is set-aside. ____________________ C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy.,J Date : 19-1-2011 AM