IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No: 9083 of 2004 BETWEEN: 1 Pushpa D/o. Mr. Gangaiah, R/o. Ainam Village, Dahegaon Mandal, Adilabad District, A.P. 2 Sri R. Srinivas S/o. Mondi, Ainam Village, Dahegaon Mandal, Adilabad District. A.P. 3 Sri G. Namdev S/o. Srihari, Ainam Village, Dahegaon Mandal, Adilabad Dist. 4 Smt. K. Kanaka Lakshmi W/o. K. Wanam Kishtaiah, Bibra Village, Dahegaon Mandal, Adilabad Dist. ... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Principal Secretary Civil Supplies Dept., Govt of A.P., Office at A.P. Secretariat Hyderabad. 2 The Asst. Collector Asifabad Office at the Sub-Collector, Asifabad, Adilabad Dist. 3 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Dahegaon Mandal Office at Dahegaon, Adilabad 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 may be pleased to issue a writ more appropriately a writ of Mandamus, declaring the Notification No.C/322/04 dt.28/04/2004 issued by the 2nd respondent as ultra vires, illegal and void in the interest of justice and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.A.M.QURESHI Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: ORDER: Petitioners submit that they are working as temporary dealers in respect of Kounchavelly, Ityal-I, Ainam and Bibra fair price shops of Dahegaon Mandal, Asifabad Division, Adilabad District. While so, the second respondent – Assistant Collector at the Sub-Collector Office, Asifabad Division issued a notification dated 28.04.2004 calling upon the applications for conducting interviews on 17.05.2004 for appointment of permanent dealers in respect of the aforesaid shop. Petitioners question the said notification as illegal and arbitrary. 2. This Court granted interim order on 11.05.2004 to continue the petitioners to supply the essential commodities. In fact, the writ petition was dismissed against the petitioners 2 and 3 but the direction was in favour of the petitioners 1 and 4 alone. The petitioners 1 and 4 are also temporary dealers and they have no right to question the said notification. However, the notification issued by the second respondent is defective in nature and does not disclose anything about the calling of applications. 3. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the second respondent is directed to issue a fresh notification for the appointment of permanent fair price shop dealers as expeditiously as possible without any undue delay. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ V. ESWARAIAH, J June 24, 2008 DSK