THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.6500 of 2010 Dated:23.03.2010 Between: Panduranga Rao. …Petitioner And The Joint Collector (CS), Mahabubnagar District, And others. ...Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.6500 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner was dealer of Fair Price Shop (FPS) at Mogal Madka Village. He alleges that he continued to be so till August 2006. He submitted his authorization to the second respondent through the third respondent for renewal. He fell sick. Therefore, the cardholders attached to his shop were supplied essential commodities through another dealer in the Village. When the authorization was not renewed, he gave a representation to the District Collector on 27.08.2009. A report was called for. Statedly the third respondent sent a report finding no fault on the part of the petitioner. Therefore, the District Collector directed the second respondent to take necessary action in the matter in accordance with the Andhra Pradesh State Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008 (Control Order). Instead of renewing the authorization the second respondent by endorsement dated 14.10.2009 rejected the renewal. Even before the petitioner could file an appeal before the first respondent, namely, the Joint Collector, second respondent issued a notification dated 02.03.2010, inviting applications from eligible persons for appointment of FPS dealer of Mogal Madka Village. Therefore, the petitioner challenged the said notification in this writ petition. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that against the orders of the second respondent refusing renewal, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Joint Collector on 25.02.2010 along with stay petition. If the appointment is made pending the appeal it would be arbitrary exercise of power by the second respondent. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies opposed the writ petition stating that the petitioner did not seek renewal of the authorization in accordance with Clause 5(14)(iii) of the Control Order, and therefore, he cannot have any right. Clause 5(14)(iii) of the Control Order reads as under. 5(14)(iii): Every authorized Fair Price Shop dealer/nominated retailer/ hawker shall apply or renewal of authorization one month before expiry of validity duly remitting the fee prescribed for renewal of authorization and such application shall be disposed by the Appointing Authority before 31st of March. However, a grace period of one month is allowed for renewal in exceptional cases duly recording the reasons. The application received for renewal of authorization after expiry of extended period of validity i.e., 30th April the authorization shall stand cancelled and the entire security deposit shall be forfeited. Such the Fair Price Shop/nominated retailer/ hawker become vacant and such vacancy shall be filled in duly following the guidelines. The appointing authority is not vested with the powers to renew the authorization on the request received for renewal after the expiry of extended period of validity of authorization: Provided that the Commissioner of Civil Supplies in special circumstances, may relax the provision and authorize the appointing authority to issue fresh authorization duly forfeiting the entire or part of security deposit in favour of Government. A plain reading of the same would show that every FPS dealer shall apply for renewal one month before expiry of the validity. The competent authority can allow the grace period of one month. Even if after expiry of grace period an application is not made for renewal, the authorization shall stand cancelled and the entire security deposit shall be forfeited. Indeed, even appointing authority is not vested with the power to renew authorization on the request received for renewal after expiry period of validity of authorization. In this case the petitioner’s authorization expired on 31.03.2002. He did not seek renewal. Therefore, it is deemed to have been cancelled. In that view of the mater, the grievance made out by the petitioner is not sound. However, as the petitioner statedly filed appeal before the Joint Collector he may pursue his remedy and the said authority shall decide the matter without being influenced by any observations made hereinabove. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 23.03.2010 vs