The Hon’ble Sri Justice R.Subhash Reddy Writ Petition No.20202 of 2008 Order: In this Writ Petition, the petitioners have questioned proceedings in Rc.No.A.2643/2007, dated 19-06-2010, passed by respondent No.3- Tahsildar, Sirvel Mandal, Kurnool District. The facts of the case, in brief, are as under: Originally, respondent No.5 was appointed as the dealer of fair price shop No.21 of Yerraguntla Village, Sirvel Mandal, Kurnool District, but due to some irregularities alleged against him, his authorisation was suspended pending enquiry. During the said period of suspension, the petitioner was appointed as temporary dealer in his place vide proceedings in Rc.A.No.2590/2007, dated 18-12- 2007, of respondent No.3. Consequently, respondent No.3, who is the disciplinary authority, completed the enquiry and issued the impugned proceedings under the provisions of the A.P.Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2005 (for short ‘the Control Order’), restoring the authorization of respondent No.5, by imposing fine of Rs.2000/-and warning her not to repeat such lapses in future. In this Writ Petition, the petitioner questioned the said proceedings on the ground that she was not given any opportunity as such before issuance of the impugned proceedings by respondent No.3. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies representing respondent Nos.1 to 4. It is to be seen that the appointment of the petitioner was only a stopgap arrangement in view of the disciplinary proceedings initiated against respondent No.5. The petitioner, who was appointed as a temporary dealer, has no locus standi to file an appeal under the provisions of the Control Order questioning the impugned proceedings on the ground that she was not given any opportunity. In that view of the matter, I do not find any illegality in the impugned proceedings, dated 19-06-2010 issued by respondent No.3, restoring the authorisation of respondent No.5. However, as it is stated that the petitioner is physically handicapped person and that she has served as fair price shop dealer for substantial period, respondents shall consider her case as and when any vacancies arise. Subject to the above observation, the Writ Petition is dismissed. _________________ R.Subhash Reddy, J Dated 16th August, 2010 lur