THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.34000 of 2011 Date: 23.12.2011 Between: Sri G. Krishna and others. …. Petitioners And The Joint District Collector (Civil Supplies) II, Ranga Reddy District, Lakdikapool, Hyderabad and others. …. Respondents THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI Writ Petition No.34000 of 2011 ORDER: Heard Sri Azim Parbatani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for the respondents and with their consent the writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage. 2. The 2nd respondent-Special Grade Deputy Collector and Revenue Divisional Officer, East Division, Ranga Reddy District, issued notification Nos.C/2045/2010 to C/2048/2010, dated 28.5.2010 calling for applications from the eligible candidates for appointment as fair price shop dealers on permanent basis in respect of the notified shops. Pursuant to the said notifications, the petitioners and respondent Nos.3 to 7 submitted their applications. The 2nd respondent, after considering the said applications, appointed the petitioners by proceedings dated 2.12.2010 and 3.12.2010. Accordingly, the petitioners obtained fair price shop authorizations and have been running the shops. Aggrieved by the said orders, respondent Nos.3 to 7 preferred an appeal before the 1st respondent-Joint Collector (CS)-II, Ranga Reddy District, who, by his order in Appeal Case No.A7/1058/2010, dated 13.4.2011 remanded the matter for reconsideration observing that the 2nd respondent did not properly consider the applications in the light of the guidelines issued in G.O.Ms.No.52, dated 18.12.2008. The petitioners have impugned the said order in this writ petition. 3. Even though the aforesaid order is impugned in the writ petition, learned counsel for the petitioners at the hearing seeks a short relief that the petitioners be provided an opportunity of hearing while reconsidering the matter. Learned counsel submits that though the 2nd respondent is expected to decide the matter after due notice to the applicants, including the petitioners, he is not inclined to do so and, on the other hand, conducting secrete enquiries through his subordinates. The learned counsel also submits that in case the matter is decided without notice, the petitioners would suffer grave injury. Therefore, it is submitted that the 2nd respondent be directed to put the petitioners on notice while reconsidering the matter. 4. Having regard to the aforesaid submissions, there is no warrant to presume that the 2nd respondent will decide the matter without notice and opportunity to the petitioners and other applicants. However, it is made clear that since the appellate authority has directed to re-examine the matter, the 2nd respondent shall do so by putting the petitioners and other applicants on notice and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. 5. With the above observation and direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. 6. In view of disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.42293 of 2011 is dismissed as unnecessary. ________________________ JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI 23.12.2011. Msr THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.34000 of 2011 23.12.2011 (Msr)