IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO : 27342 of 2009 Between: Chandini Vani ..... PETITIONER(S) AND The Joint Collector, Guntur and others. .....RESPONDENT(S) THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO : 27342 of 2009 ORDER : The petitioner, who is a temporary fair price shop dealer appointed in the vacancy caused on account of the suspension of the 4th respondent’s authorization, filed the present writ petition with the following prayer: “That the Hon’ble Court maybe pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No.1 in not passing orders on the petitioner’s appeal filed on 01-12-2009 before the 1st respondent as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the 1st respondent to dispose of the appeal.” 2. The brief facts are that the 4th respondent is the authorized fair price shop dealer of Sandepudi village of Edlapadu Mandal, and she has been distributing scheduled commodities since long time. On the basis of a report furnished by the 3rd respondent-Tahsildar, Edlapadu Mandal, Guntur Disrict, the disciplinary authority/appointing authority i.e. the 2nd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, Narsaraopet, Guntur District, by his proceedings dated 23-07-2009, suspended her authorization. On account of the suspension of the authorization of the 4th respondent, the petitioner herein was appointed as a temporary dealer of the said shop. After giving show cause notice, explanation received from the 4th respondent and after holding an enquiry, the 2nd respondent passed an order on 24-11- 2009 restoring the petitioner’s authorization, but, however, by imposing a penalty of Rs.2,000/- for the minor lapses which the 4th respondent has committed. Challenging the same, the petitioner approached the 1st respondent-Joint Collector, Guntur, Guntur District, and filed an appeal along with an application seeking suspension of the said order. But as no orders have been passed, the petitioner approached this Court and filed the present writ petition. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. 4. It shall be remembered that it is only in the resultant vacancy caused on account of the suspension of the 4th respondent’s authorization, the petitioner was appointed as a temporary dealer. In my considered view, the petitioner cannot claim any vested right. The moment the 4th respondent’s authorization is restored, the petitioner has no business to continue to be a fair price shop dealer. In fact, the 4th respondent suffered for a period of about four weeks and he was also directed to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-. Therefore, the grievance of the petitioner that though she filed an appeal before the 1st respondent, but no orders have been passed thereon, in my considered view, is not justified. 5. As the petitioner has stated that she was permitted to distribute scheduled commodities for the last four months and as she paid the entire amount by way of demand drafts, the stocks were also supplied to her for the month of December, 2009, she shall be permitted to continue as fair price shop dealer of Sandepudi village, Edlapadu Mandal, up to 31-12-2009 and the order of the 2nd respondent dated 24-11-2009 restoring the authorization of the 4th respondent shall come into force with effect from 01-01-2010. 6. It is made clear that the petitioner shall not pursue the said appeal and she shall withdraw the said appeal immediately. 7. With the aforementioned direction, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ December 21, 2009 Note: Issue c.c tomorrow. B/o. kvr