IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 2738 of 2008 Between: Sri M.Manikya Rao S/o.M.Nagabhushanam R/o.Pulipadu (V), Gurazala (Mandal) Guntur District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, Guntur District. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Narasaraopet, Guntur District. 3 The Mandal REvenue Officer, Gurazala Mandal, Guntur District. 4 Smt.M.Roshamma W/o.Gurabaiah R/o. Pulipadu (V) Gurazala (M), Guntur District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MS. D.S.LAKSHMI Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 3: AGP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not appointing the petitioner as fair price shop dealer of Pulipadu Village, Gurazala Mandal, Guntur District, as illegal and arbitrary. The father of the petitioner, namely, M.Nagabhushanam was a dealer of Pulipadu fair price shop. On 21.08.2007, he died. As a temporary measure, respondent No.4 was entrusted with the distribution of essential commodities. The grievance of the petitioner is that since his father was the permanent dealer and he belongs to Scheduled Caste, he ought to have been entrusted with the distribution of essential commodities in his father’s place instead of choosing respondent No.4 for the said work. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record, I am of the considered view that the petitioner has no enforceable legal right to claim temporary dealership or appointment as fair price shop dealer on permanent basis in place of his father. There is no statutory provision or policy decision taken by the Government as yet, by which the children of the deceased fair price shop dealers shall be conferred with the privilege of distribution of essential commodities either on temporary or on permanent basis. In this view of the matter, the writ petition is wholly misconceived and hence, dismissed. Since the fair price shop is not notified for appointment of a permanent dealer, respondent Nos.1 to 3 are directed to initiate steps for filling up the dealership on permanent basis and complete the said process within a period of three (3) months. The petitioner is entitled to submit his application in the event of the shop being notified and the same be considered for appointment on permanent basis, if he is eligible under the proposed notification. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, WPMP.No.3526 of 2007 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 28th MARCH, 2008 kvni