IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO : 21072 of 2009 Between: T.Rajya Lakshmi, W/o Narayana Raju, 33 years, Occ: Temporary F.P.Shop Dealer, F.P.Shop Nos.12 & 13, Sivaraja Nagar, Darsi (v) & Mandal, Prakasam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Joint Collector, Ongole, Prakasam District and 3 others. .....RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION No.21072 of 2009 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not allotting and releasing the essential commodities in favour of the petitioner, so as to enable her to continue and distribute the same to the cardholders of F.P.Shop Nos.12 and 13 of Sivarajanagar of Darsi village and Mandal, Prakasam District, pending finalization of notifying the vacancy and filling up the dealership on regular basis under A.P. State Public Distribution System (Control) Order 2008 by the 2nd respondent, as directed by the 1st respondent in proceedings Rc.CS2/2539/2009 dated 16.09.2009, as illegal and arbitrary. The case of the petitioner is that she was appointed as fair price shop dealer of Shop Nos.12 and 13, Darsi Mandal, Prakasam district in the year 1998 and thereafter on the allegation that she was not distributing the essential commodities to the cardholders properly, the 2nd respondent, by proceedings dated 06.08.2009, discontinued the petitioner. Challenging the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal along with stay petition before the 1st respondent. As no orders have been passed by the 1st respondent, the petitioner approached this Court and filed W.P.No.16800 of 2009 and this Court by an order dated 13.08.2009 disposed of the said writ petition directing the 1st respondent to dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of that order. In pursuance of the said order, the 1st respondent by order dated 16.09.2009 dismissed the said appeal with a direction to the 2nd respondent to notify the vacancy and fill up the dealership immediately. Hence the writ petition. Heard both sides. Having considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for both sides, this Court is of the view that this writ petition is wholly misconceived. Undisputedly, the petitioner has been appointed as fair price shop dealer on temporary basis and she has no right whatsoever to be continued forever. That apart, when the petitioner failed to supply the essential commodities to the cardholders, the respondents have cancelled her licence and notified the vacancy. Hence, I find no reason whosoever to interfere with the order of the 1st respondent. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. However, as the petitioner was appointed as fair price shop dealer in the year 1998 and continued as fair price shop dealer for the past 11 years, the respondents are directed to consider the feasibility of continuing the petitioner as fair price shop dealer in question, till the permanent arrangements are made. No order as to costs. ____________________________ (GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J) 25-09-2009 Gsn.