IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OFAPRIL, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY WRIT PETITION No.27345 of 2006 Between: V.Lalitha. … Petitioner And The Revenue Divisional Officer, Bhongir Mandal, Nalgonda District, and another. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Sri V.Ramchender Goud Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Civil Supplies. This Court made the following: ORDER:- This Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not releasing the essential commodities to the petitioner, as illegal and arbitrary. Heard Sri V.Ramchander Goud, learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is admittedly appointed as a temporary fair price shop dealer of Raghavapuram village, Atmakur Mandal, Nalgonda District and that from the month of December, 2006 the respondents discontinued supply of essential commodities to his shop. He further submitted that this Court by order dated 29-12- 2006 directed the respondents to supply essential commodities to the fair price shop of the petitioner, if the authorization held by her is neither suspended nor cancelled. In the counter-affidavit filed along with vacate stay application, respondent No.2 stated that the villagers of Raghavapuram village sent complaints against the petitioner stating that in the month of November, 2006 she has not distributed the essential commodities properly and that during the course of enquiry it was revealed that the petitioner has not issued rice to the new card holders and selling Iodized salt at higher rate of Rs.5/- per Kg., as against the Government rate of Rs.4/- Kg. It is also averred that instead of distributing three liters of kerosene on white and AAY cards, the petitioner was supplying two liters per card. The answering respondent also alleged variation in the stocks. He further averred that in view of the said irregularities, the quota for the month of December, 2006 was allotted to the fair price shop of the adjacent village to regulate distribution of essential commodities. Even going by the above-mentioned averments contained in the counter-affidavit, it is evident that the petitioner’s authorization is not cancelled or suspended. If the respondents were satisfied that the petitioner indulged in serious illegalities and irregularities, nothing prevented them from taking action against the petitioner in accordance with the provisions of the A.P. State Public Distribution Control Order, 2001. Even if the petitioner is a temporary dealer, so long as her authorization is not suspended or terminated, the respondents cannot withhold supply of essential commodities to her. In this view of the matter, the Writ Petition is allowed. Liberty is, however, given to the respondents to initiate action against the petitioner, in accordance with law. ------------------------------------ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J 30-4-2008 MNR