IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.12023 of 2009 Between: 1 Kum. Patchigolla Lalitha D/o. Venkata Ramana R/o. Papayya Santhapalem, Anakapalle Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. 2 Sri K.V.V. Sanyasi Setty S/o. Venkata Rao R/o. Papayya Santhapalem, Anakapalle Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Tahsildar Anakapalle Mandal Visakhapatnam Dist. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam Dist. 3 Smt. Ch. Mangatalli Kondupalem Village, Anakapalle Mandal, Visakhapatnam Dist. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners:MR.W.B.SRINIVAS Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 & 2:AGP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for issuance of a mandamus to set aside order, dated 12.06.2009 whereby respondent No.1 made in-charge arrangements attached to the fair price shops of the petitioners for distribution of essential commodities to the cardholders. A perusal of the impugned order shows that on 10.06.2009, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Regional Vigilance and Enforcement, Visakhapatnam inspected fair price shop Nos.78 and 79 and booked cases under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 on the ground that the petitioners were found to have committed certain irregularities in maintaining the records. On that basis, respondent No.1 kept the dealer of fair price shop No.80 of Kondupalem Village as in- charge to fair price shop Nos.78 and 79 held by the petitioners for distribution of essential commodities to the cardholders. Sri W.B.Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the impugned order does not show that the authorizations of the petitioners are kept under suspension and, therefore, the order keeping somebody else as in-charge of the petitioners’ shops cannot be sustained in law. Inasmuch as the impugned order does not show that the petitioners’ authorizations have been suspended, it is not permissible for respondent No.1 to entrust the distribution of essential commodities pertaining to the shops held by the petitioners to another dealer. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. Respondent No.1 is directed to permit the petitioners to function as fair price shop dealers of shop Nos.78 and 79 respectively so long as their authorizations are not suspended or cancelled. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 19th JUNE, 2009. Note: issue c.c. in three (3) days. kvni