IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No: 19689 of 2004 BETWEEN: Sai Samabhavana Sangam (Regd. Society), rep. by its President Smt. Y. Laxmi, W/o. Yella Reddy, Peda Nemili Village, Natankal Mandal, Nalgonda District. ... PETITIONER AND 1 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Suryapet, Nalgonda District. 2 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Nutankal Mandal, Nalgonda District. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus to declare the action of the 1st respondent in issuing the Notification No.D/937/04 Dt. 29.07.2004 calling for applications for the purpose of allotment of Dealership of Fair Price Shop, Peda Nemili Village, Dt. 27.9.2004 and without passing any orders on the explanation submitted by the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of principles of natural justice and consequently set-aside the same and to pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.KANAKAMEDALA RAVINDRA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: ORDER: Petitioner-society questions the notification issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Suryapet, Nalgonda District dated 29.07.2004 in calling for the applications for appointment of the Fair Price Shop Dealer for the shop at Peda Nemili Village, Nutankal Mandal, Nellore District on the ground that it is an existing dealer and therefore, no other dealer can be appointed. 2. Counter has been filed stating that, in fact, one D. Shobha Rani was the fair price shop dealer of Pedanemili village but her authorization was cancelled and thereafter the petitioner-society was allowed to distribute the essential commodities to the cardholders, it being a society, to avoid inconvenience to the cardholders only on temporary basis. 3. Merely because certain action has been taken for the irregularities against the permanent fair price shop dealer and that petitioner-society has been appointed to distribute the essential commodities on temporary basis, it cannot be presumed and assumed that the petitioner-society was appointed as a permanent dealer. Admittedly, the petitioner-society was not selected pursuant to any notification but was only appointed as temporary dealer, if that be so, I am of the opinion that temporary dealer cannot question the notification issued by the first respondent. However, it is stated that this Court passed interim order on 28.10.2004 wherein it was directed that the selection process may go on in pursuance of the impugned notification, but the selection shall not be finalized, if not already finalized; even before receiving the aforesaid interim order, the selection of one Mr. Kassoju Shanker as fair price shop dealer was finalized on 28.10.2004. In view of the aforesaid fact that a candidate was selected before receiving the orders of this Court and that the petitioner- society has not at all impleaded the selected candidate; more so petitioner- society being a temporary dealer, it is not entitled to question the impugned notification. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ V. ESWARAIAH, J July 1, 2008 DSK