THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No :12436 of 2007 Date: 21.6.2010 Between: DONGARA NAGESHWAR RAO ..... PETITIONER AND The Collector,(CS), Nalgonda District and others. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner : Mr.Nageswara Rao Palle Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 : G.P. for Civil Supplies The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No :12436 of 2007 ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to set aside proceedings dated 11.4.2007 of respondent No.2, whereby he appointed respondent No.4 as fair price shop dealer of Shop No.1, Anantagiri Village, Kodad Mandal, Nalgonda District. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies representing Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. The petitioner is one of the applicants for appointment of fair price shop dealer of the above mentioned village in pursuance of notification dated 10.1.2005 issued by respondent No.2. Respondent No.4, who was a temporary dealer also applied in pursuance of the said notification and was selected. By proceedings dated 11.4.2007, respondent No.2 appointed respondent No.4 as permanent dealer. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent No.4 has indulged in serious irregularities in running the fair price shop as a temporary dealer and therefore, she should not have been appointed as a permanent dealer. In support of his contention, learned counsel placed reliance upon letter dated 16.10.2004 addressed by respondent No.3 to respondent No.2. In the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.2, the allegation that the authorisation of respondent No.4 was cancelled for irregularities has been denied. It is stated that though the Enquiry Officer has not reported any irregularities, respondent No.3 vide his letter dated 16.10.2004 recommended for cancellation of her dealership stating that respondent No.4 has committed irregularities in distribution of commodities. Respondent No.2 has further stated that during the enquiry, no such irregularities were proved and, therefore, the temporary authorisation of respondent No.4 was neither cancelled nor suspended. In my opinion, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on two grounds, namely, that the petitioner did not avail the remedy of an appeal against the appointment of respondent No.4. Secondly, the premise on which the petitioner filed the present writ petition, namely, that the authorization of respondent No.4 was earlier cancelled is found to be obviously incorrect, as evident from the stand take by respondent No.2 in the counter affidavit. The petitioner has not filed any material to show that respondent No.4 was found guilty of the irregularities, except letter dated 16.11.2004 addressed by respondent No.3 to respondent No.2. The said letter is only recommendatory in nature and respondent No.2 has not accepted his recommendation and no order was passed against respondent No.4 holding her guilty of commission of irregularities in running the fair price shop as temporary dealer. Therefore, I find no merit in this writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs __________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY,J DATE: 21st June, 2010 pnb