THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.7263 of 2008 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed questioning the action of the second respondent – Revenue Divisional Officer, Gudivada, Krishna District, in issuing notification in Rc.No.G.231/2008, dated 05.03.2008 insofar as it relates to appointment of a dealer for fair price shop No.12 of Pedamaddali Village, Pamarru Mandal, Krishna District. It is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed as a dealer for distribution of scheduled commodities for fair price shop No.12 of Pedamaddali Village, Pamarru Mandal, Krishna District, under Scheduled Caste category in August, 1990. It is also his case that in June, 2000, he suffered ill-health due to Tuberculosis and Diabetes as such he could not lift the stocks and in view of the same, arrangements were made by appointing a temporary dealer. The respondents have notified to fill up the vacancy of fair price shop No.12 by the impugned notification. Questioning the same, the petitioner filed this Writ Petition alleging that the authorisation granted in his favour was not cancelled, as such, there is no vacancy exists with regard to fair price shop No.12. At the stage of admission, this Court by order, dated 03.04.2008, issued directions not to fill up the vacancy of fair price shop in question pursuant to the impugned notification, pending further orders. The interim order passed by this Court continued since 03.04.2008. Though the Writ Petition is of 2008, no counter-affidavit is filed. But, when the matter is taken up, it is submitted by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for the respondents that temporary dealer is being continued in view of pendency of this Writ Petition. When a permanent dealer is appointed and if on any ground, he has not lifted the stocks in violation of the conditions of authorisation and the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh State Public Distribution System Control Order, it is open to the respondents to cancel the same. But, when the authorisation granted in favour of the petitioner in respect of fair price shop No.12 of Pedamaddali Village is in force, the respondents cannot notify the same. As much as it is submitted by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for the respondents that temporary dealer, who has been appointed in the place of the petitioner, is being continued in view of pendency of the Writ Petition, as no counter-affidavit is filed disputing the allegations of the petitioner and as it is stated that the petitioner’s authorisation to run the fair price shop in question is in force, I am of the view that the impugned notification is liable to be set aside and if the petitioner has violated any of the conditions of the authorisation or the provisions of the Control Order, it is open to the respondents to take appropriate steps to cancel his authorisation. But, in the absence of the same, the respondents cannot notify the vacancy. There shall be a direction to the respondents that till appropriate decision is taken either to continue the petitioner or to cancel his authorisation, existing arrangements shall be continued. Further, if the vacancy is to be filled up, the respondents have to notify it afresh and take steps to fill up the same. Accordingly, the impugned notification is set aside and the Writ Petition is disposed of with the observations and directions as indicated above. No order as to costs. _______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 30th AUGUST, 2011. kvni