THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.32611 of 2010 DT.24.12.2010 Between: Nakkala Naga Lakshmi … Petitioner And The Joint Collector, Prakasham District, Ongole and others … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri I. Koti Reddy Counsel for respondents: AGP for Civil Supplies The Court made the following ORDER: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not implementing the proceedings, dated 16.11.2010, of respondent No.2, by allotting essential commodities to the petitioner for distribution through the fair price shop of Adiveehipalem H/o. Motupalli Village, Chinaganjam Mandal, Prakasam District. I have heard Sri I.Koti Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. The petitioner, who is the fair price shop dealer, faced disciplinary proceedings. By order, dated 16.11.2010, respondent No.2 while finding that the petitioner was guilty of the charges framed against her, however, observed that all those charges are minor in nature and restored the authorization subject to levy of Rs.2,000/- as penalty. Following the said order, the petitioner’s authorization was restored on 10.12.2010. The petitioner has pleaded that on receipt of the above order of respondent No.2, she has approached respondent No.3 for allotment of essential commodities for the month of December, 2010. As respondent No.3 has not allotted the essential commodities, she has made a representation before respondent No.1. Since respondent No.1 has not taken any action on her representation, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that his client has purchased Demand Draft on 18.12.2010 for Rs.34,816/-, representing the value of the stock of the essential commodities, and approached respondent No.3 on the same day with a request to receive the same, but as the latter declined to receive the same, she has sent the Demand Draft with a petition on 21.12.2010. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies, on instructions, submitted that the petitioner never approached respondent No.3 before 18.12.2010 and that for the first time, she sought to present the Demand Draft on 21.12.2010, by which time, the quota for December, 2010 was already allotted to the in-charge dealer. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner has asserted that his client has sought to submit the Demand Draft on 18.12.2010 to respondent No.3, neither she has taken this plea in her representation, dated 21.12.2010, made to respondent No.1, nor in her affidavit filed in support of this writ petition. In the absence of such a plea, this Court is not prepared to accept this submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. As evidently the petitioner failed to approach respondent No.3 before allotment of the essential commodities for the month of December, 2010, she was not allotted the same. The learned Assistant Government Pleader has, however, on instructions, submitted that respondent No.3 will allot the essential commodities for the month of January, 2011 subject to the petitioner submitting the Demand Drafts towards the value of the commodities before the stipulated date. This submission of the learned Assistant Government Pleader is placed on record and the writ petition is accordingly disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.41445 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) Date: 24.12.2010 VGB