THE HONBLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.22892 of 2008 ORAL ORDER: The petitioner herein is the temporary dealer of the fair price shop at Narsampet village. Subsequently a notiﬁcation was issued for appointment of a dealer on permanent basis and the 4th respondent herein was selected provisionally following due process of law. Challenging the same, the petitioner preferred an Appeal before the Joint Collector, Warangal District, along with an application for stay of all further proceedings, pending Appeal. Having considered the petitioner’s application, the 1st respondent/Joint Collector passed an order on 14.10.2008 as under: “The appeal petition U/Cl.20 of the A.P. State P.D.S. (Control) Order, 2001 ﬁled by the appellant against the provisional selection of Sri Rayili Sambaiah S/o Uppalaiah as F.P. Shop dealer, Shop No.14 at Narsampet village and mandal has been examined and taken on ﬁle Prima facie there is no reason to grant the stay on provisional selection of 1st respondent as F.P. Shop dealer, Shop No.14, at Narsampet. However the 2nd respondent is directed that not to take any steps in this matter till disposal of appeal. As could be seen from the above order, the 1st respondent declined to grant stay of selection of the 4th respondent. However, relying upon the next sentence in the order directing the 2nd respondent not to take any steps in the matter till disposal of the Appeal, the petitioner contends that the respondents ought to have continued the petitioner as temporary dealer. The petitioner states that for the month of October, 2008 since she had already paid the cost of essential commodities by way of a DD, the respondents should have released the commodities to her. It is alleged that in spite of the order of the 1st respondent dated 14.10.2008, the respondents 2 and 3 are taking steps to issue authorization to respondent No.4 and even the release order for the month of October has been issued in favour of the 4th respondent. Hence, the present writ petition seeking a declaration that the action of the respondents 2 and 3 is arbitrary and illegal. Having regard to the speciﬁc ﬁnding recorded by the 1st respondent that there is no reason to grant stay of provisional selection of the 1st respondent i.e., 4th respondent herein, I am unable to accept the contention of the petitioner that she is entitled to continue as temporary dealer. Even assuming that there is any ambiguity, it is for the 1st respondent to clarify. Hence, the petitioner ought to have approached the 1st respondent for necessary clariﬁcation, but a writ petition cannot be maintained under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Mandamus to continue her as temporary dealer and to release the commodities to her. Accordingly, leaving it open to the petitioner to ﬁle an appropriate application before the 1st respondent, if she so chooses, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. 24.10.2008. Note: Issue CC by today. (Bo) Kgr IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 22892 of 2008 Between: Gorre Vijaya W/o. Late Sammaiah, R/o. Harijan Wada, Narsampet, Warangal Dist. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Joint Collector Warangal District, Warangal. 2 Revenue Divisional Officer Narsampet, Warangal. 3 Tahsildar Narsampet, Warangal. 4 Ravella Sambaiah S/o. Uppalaiah, R/o. Ward No.12, Harijan Wada, Narsampet, Warangal Dist. ..RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to issue Writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the action of the Respondents 2 and 3 in not complying the Order of the 1st Respondent in Appeal No.18/2008 dated 14-10-2008 and further taking steps to issue authorization and issue of quota from the month of October 2008 to the 4th respondent as totally illegal and without jurisdiction and consequently direct the Respondents to continue the existing arrangement of petitioner's temporary dealership for the Shop No.35 Narsampet, Warangal Dist. Counsel for the Petitioner: PINGALI LAKSHMI Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: