IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 12629 of 2009 Between: Kishore Kumar, S/o. Late Balanarayana, 13/431, B.K.M. Street, Kadapa District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commissioner, Civil Supplies Department, Civil Supply Bhavan, Somajiguda, Hyderabad. 2 The Joint Collector, Kadapa District. 3 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kadapa District. 4 The Tahsildar, Kadapa District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.VINAY KAMISETTY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside Notification, dated 11-06-2009, issued by respondent No.3, in so far as it pertains to Fair Price Shop No.32 of B.K.M.Street of Kadapa Town, Kadapa District, as being illegal, arbitrary and contrary to Circular, dated 29-06-2005, issued by respondent No.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. The petitioner’s father was the authorised dealer of the abovementioned Fair Price Shop. Consequent on his death, on 09-11-2006, the vacancy in respect of the said shop along with several other vacancies in Kadapa Town were notified by respondent No.3 vide notification, dated 11-06-2009, calling for applications from the eligible candidates for appointment as Fair Price Shop dealers. Feeling aggrieved by the said notification, the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition. At the hearing, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent No.1 issued Circular, dated 29-06-2005, wherein he called for remarks from all the Collectors (CS)/Chief Rationing Officers for examining the feasibility to amend G.O.Ms.No.53, dated 06-10-2003, for transfer of authorizations in the event of death of the authorized dealers to their legal heirs. The learned Counsel placed reliance on Order, dated 27-09-2006, in W.P.No.27067 of 2005 and proceedings, dated 01-12-2006, of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Siddipet. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the documents, on which he placed reliance. Under Circular, dated 29-06-2005, on which the learned Counsel placed reliance, respondent No.1 initiated proposals for amendment of G.O.Ms.No.53, dated 06-10-2003, which laid the criteria and procedure for appointment of Fair Price Shop dealers. By that Circular, respondent No.1 merely requested the unit heads to examine the feasibility for amending the said GO. Admittedly, the said GO did not recognize the right of the legal heirs for appointment as Fair Price Shop dealers in the place of the deceased dealers through succession or inheritance. The learned Counsel for the petitioner conceded that the proposals, which emanated through the said Circular, did not result in amendment of G.O.Ms.No.53 and till now, no right has been created in the legal heirs of the deceased Fair Price Shop dealers for their exclusive consideration and appointment in place of the deceased dealers. Therefore, no rights have come to be crystallized in favour of the legal heirs of the deceased Fair Price Shop dealers and consequently, the petitioner cannot maintain this Writ Petition in the absence of any such legally enforceable right. A careful perusal of Order, dated 27-09-2006, passed by this Court in W.P.No.27067 of 2005, shows that this Court merely directed the Revenue Divisional Officer, Siddipet, to consider the representation of the petitioner therein in terms of Circular, dated 29-06-2005. This Court has not given any finding that the said Circular has created a right in the petitioner therein for appointment in place of her deceased husband. However, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Siddipet, while appointing the petitioner in that Writ Petition, did not appear to have properly understood the scope of the said Order of this Court and, evidently, took it as a mandate to appoint the petitioner therein. In my considered view, respondent No.3 cannot be directed to commit the same mistake as was done by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Siddipet, while purporting to follow the order of this Court. So long as the Government has not amended the existing procedure and has not created a right in the legal heirs of the deceased Fair Price Shop dealers for appointment by inheritance/succession, the petitioner cannot question the action of the appointing authority in considering the claims of all the eligible persons for appointment as Fair Price Shop dealers in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.53, dated 06-10-2003. At this stage, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner herein has been permitted to operate as dealer of the abovementioned Fair Price Shop on temporary basis. But, in my view, the said fact by itself would not create any right in the petitioner for permanent appointment without reference to the procedure, governing such appointment. For the above-mentioned reasons, the petitioner failed to make out any case for interference by this Court. The Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, W.P.M.P.No.16333 of 2009 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. .______________________ (C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) 29th June, 2009 lur