IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 27219 of 2008 Between: R. Nagaraju S/o. Late R. manohar R/o. 9-88, Kohir Village and Mandal, Medak District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Revenue Divisional Officer Sanga Reddi at Sanga Reddy , Medak District. 2 The Tahsildar, Kohir Mandal, Medak District. 3 The District Collector, Medak District, at Sanga Reddy District. 4 P. Veerasham S/o. Sangaiah R/o. Kohir Village and Mandal Medak District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue order direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus as the Respondent No.1 has not issued notification as per the Procedure laid down in the A.P. State Public Distribution System Control Order 2001 and also that the Notification dt. 29-11-2008 No. B2/504./2008 was not displayed in the offices Notice mentioned in the notification which is a clear violation of principles of natural justice, as such the said notification issued by the Respondent No.1 may be declared as illegal, consequently appoint the petitioner as a Fair Price Dealer in place of his father. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.G.ARUN KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU W.P. No. 27219 of 2008 O R D E R: It appears, the father of the petitioner, who was authorized dealer of Fair-price shop No.7 of Kohir village and mandal, Medak District, passed away on 24.9.2008. The grievance of the petitioners is that after the death of his father, he was allowed to run the shop till November, 2008, but, thereafter, the said shop has been handed over to respondent No.4. According to the petitioner, respondent No.4 was, in fact, appointed in place of his father, who passed away recently, against fair-price shop No.3, but the same discretion was not extended in favour of the petitioner and on the other hand, a notification dated 29.11.2008 was issued inviting applications to fill up the vacancy against fair-price shop No.7. Hence, this writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently opposed the writ petition and stated that the petitioner has no right whatsoever. The authorization held under the Control Orders is not transferable and if the petitioner is eligible, his case also would be considered in case he applies for the same as per the Notification. Therefore, the writ petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. I have given my earnest consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the material made available on record. The only grievance of the petitioner is that as in the case of respondent No.4, his father also passed away; however, his case was not considered for appointment as fair-price shop dealer. Further, there was no necessity for the authorities to handover the fair-price shop No.7 to 4th respondent before finalization of the notification to fill up the vacancy of fair-price shop dealer of shop No.7 of Kohir village and mandal, Medak District. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents 1 to 3 to go ahead with the Notification issued on 29.11.2008 for filling up the vacancy of dealer for fair-price shop No.7 of Kohir village and mandal, Medak District. However, if any application is made by the petitioner even beyond the date of receiving the applications, the same may be accepted and considered along with others. Till such time, the petitioner may be permitted to run the fair-price shop No.7 of Kohir village and mandal, Medak District, instead of handing it over to 4th respondent. C.V. RAMULU, J. Date: 16-12-2008. Note: C.C. in a week. (BO) MVB.