IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA WRIT PETITION No.241 OF 2010 Between: Sri Ketavath Ravi Kumar, S/o. Late Sri Venkat ..... PETITIONER AND The Revenue Divisional Officer, Miryalaguda, Nalgonda District and others ....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA WRIT PETITION No.241 OF 2010 ORDER: This Court ordered notice before admission on 12.01.2010 and granted interim suspension for a limited period. 2. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 were impleaded as parties by virtue of an order made by this Court, on 01.02.2010, in W.P.MP.No.1634 of 2010. 3. W.V.MP.No.327 of 2010 is filed to vacate the interim suspension. When the vacate application is taken up for hearing, the learned counsel on record made a request for the final disposal of the writ petition. Hence, the writ petition itself is disposed of finally. 4. Heard Sri Bollam Lingaiah Yadav, learned counsel representing the writ petitioner; learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies, representing respondent No.1 and Sri A. Bhaskara Chary, representing respondent Nos.2 and 3. 5. The writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to set aside the notification, dated 21.12.2009, vide No.E2/2542/2009, issued by respondent No.1, calling applications for the Dealership of Fair Price Shop at Yapalapaya Thanda, Rekulagadda Village, Chandampet Mandal, Nalgonda District, as it is illegal, improper, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and that the petitioner’s authorization is valid up to 31.03.2011 and pass such other suitable orders. 6. It is the case of the petitioner that he is the dealer of the Fair Price Shop in question and was appointed by respondent No.1 on 23.10.2009 in the place of his father, who was the dealer of the same Fair Price Shop, as he was demised on 01.10.2009. The specific stand taken by the petitioner is that his authorization is valid up to 31.03.2011 and thus, he had been distributing the essential commodities to valid cardholders as per the directions of respondent No.1 and also the concerned Tahsildhar. It is also further stated that he belongs to Schedule Tribe and Community, qualified in S.S.C. and thus, he is eligible for the appointment. Several other further facts had also been narrated and it is stated that without issuing any show-cause notice, directly the notification, dated 21.12.2009, had been issued for appointment of permanent Fair Price Shop Dealer in his place. 7. The main grievance of the petitioner is that his authorization is valid up to 31.03.2011, and hence, in the meanwhile no such permanent appointment can be made. Further, it is his stand that even if such permanent appointment is made, till that date the right of the petitioner, to distribute the essential commodities, cannot be disturbed. 8. In the affidavit filed in support of the vacate application W.V.MP.No.327 of 2010, respondent Nos.2 and 3 had taken a stand that in pursuance of the notification issued by respondent No.1 to the said vacancy of Fair Price Shop Dealership they along with other applicants had applied. It is also stated that the writ petitioner also applied for the same. The writ petitioner being only a temporary dealer, he cannot claim any legal right whatsoever. 9. It is not in serious controversy that the writ petitioner is a temporary dealer and it appears that the writ petitioner also made an application for his appointment as a permanent dealer. The other merits and demerits need not be gone into at this stage since, by virtue of the notification, the writ petitioner also made an application along with respondent Nos.2 and 3 and certain others. It is needless to say that the appointing authority may have to consider the merits and demerits and the preference, if any, to be given to the writ petitioner in accordance with law, if he is so entitled to. Till such exercise is completed and the permanent appointment is made in this regard, it is made clear that the writ petitioner is entitled to distribute the essential commodities. 10. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ P.S. NARAYANA, J February 02, 2010 MD