THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA Writ Petition No.27016 of 2007 (Dated: 4-2-2008) Between: M.B.Sudhakar Gowd S/o Gulleppa, Fair Price shop temporary dealer, 11th ward R/o H.No.5-2-55, Jogappa Kotla Street, Uravakonda village & Mandal, Anantapur District. ….Petitioner A n d The Revenue Divisional Officer, Anantapur Anantapur District. ….Respondent ORDER: This Court ordered notice before admission on 18.12.2007 and granted an order of status quo for a limited period, which is being extended from time to time. 2. W.V.M.P.No.141 of 2008 is filed to vacate the interim order. At the request of the counsel for the writ petitioner Kothapally Ram Mohan Chowdary and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies, the matter is being disposed of finally. 3. The writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondent issuing notification in R.C.No.D1/CS/2391/2007 signed on 19.11.2007 calling for the application for the 11th ward fair price shop in Uravakonda village and Mandal, Anantapur District on permanent basis from B.C. General candidates without giving notice and without considering representation of the petitioner dated 12.12.2007 and to pass such other orders. 4. It is stated that the petitioner was appointed by the respondent as dealer of 11th ward Fair Price shop in Uravakonda village and Mandal, Anantapur District on temporary basis by proceedings Rc.No.D1/CS/176/2005, dated 19.2.2005 and since then he has been distributing the essential commodities to the card holders without any complaint. It is further stated that the respondent herein issued notification in Rc.No.D1/CS/2391/2007 dated 19.11.2007 calling for applications to fill up the said fair price shop authorization on permanent basis from B.C.General candidates without issuing any notice to the petitioner herein. It is stated that the petitioner also applied for the said post on 12.12.2007 requesting to appoint him as authorized dealer on permanent basis. 5. Further, it is stated that his entire family was dependent upon the commission derived from selling of the essential commodities. According to the petitioner, the respondent, without considering the representations of the petitioner dated 12.10.2007 and 12.12.2007 and without passing any orders on the said representations, appointed the authorized dealer on permanent basis, though the petitioner belongs to B.C.General and there is no complaint against the petitioner for canceling or suspending the authorization and the same is illegal and unjust. 6. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent, it is averred that the petitioner was appointed as fair price shop dealer on temporary basis as time gap arrangement to avoid inconvenience to the poor card holders. It is further stated that to fill up the fair price shop vacancy on permanent basis, the F.P shop vacancy was notified inviting applications from B.C General category fixing the last date for receipt of application as 30.11.2007. According to the respondent, the petitioner’s contention that no notice has been issued to him before issue of notification is untenable because at the time of issue of appointment, the petitioner was informed that he has no right over the F.P shop and no prior notice will be issued to him. It is stated that temporary dealer has no right to question the notification to fill up the vacancy on regular basis and as per the notification, 15 applications were received in stipulated time and the same were sent to Tahsildar, Uravakonda for submission of character and antecedents of the applicants. 7. Further, it is stated that the petitioner’s representation is under consideration along with other 14 applications and after receipt of character and antecedents report from the Tahsildar, Uravakonda, interview will be conducted and appointment orders will be issued as per the eligibility of the applicants duly following the guidelines issued in G.O.Ms.No.53, dated 6.10.2003. It is stated that the petitioner is a temporary fair price shop dealer working in time gap arrangement to avoid inconvenience to the cardholders and the petitioner has no right to question the notification. It is also stated that the petitioner has an effective alternative remedy of an appeal before the Joint Collector, Anantapur and revision before the District Collector, Anantapur as per clause 20, 21 of A.P.S.P.D.S (Control) Order 2001 respectively. Further, certain particulars also had been given. 8. In the light of the specific stand taken that the petitioner’s representation also is under consideration along with 14 other applications, let the representation of the petitioner also be considered along with the 14 applications as specified in para 2 of the counter affidavit. 9. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. Inasmuch as an order of status quo had already been granted, the same is continued till the representations of the petitioner are considered and disposed of. No order as to costs. __________________ P.S.NARAYANA, J 04-02-2008 RAR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA Writ Petition No.27016 of 2007 (Dated: 4-2-2008)