IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 20935 of 2008 Between: T. Maheswari W/o. Sivarami Reddy R/o. Kothakota Village, Dhone Mandal, Kurnool District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kurnool, Kurnool District. 2 The Tahsildar, Dhone Mandal, Kurnool District. 3 Kum. B. Sharada D/o. B. Gopal Reddy Kurnool District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus by declaring the action of the ﬁrst respondent in appointing the third respondent as F.P. Shop dealership of the Kothakota village Dhone Mandal, Kurnool District by his orders dt. 6-8-2008 through my appeal is pending before him is arbitrary illegal and against the Principles of natural justice and consequently direct the oﬃcial respondents to restore my fair price shop dealersip Kothakota Village Dhone Mandal, Kurnool District and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.KUMMATHI VENKATESULU Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO. 20935 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioner is the authorized dealer of fair price shop of Kothakota village, Dhone Mandal, Kurnool District. By order dated 22.01.2008 passed by the second respondent – Tahasildar, the petitioner’s authorization was suspended pending enquiry. Thereafter a show cause notice was issued calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why her authorization should not be cancelled. It is stated that aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the ﬁrst respondent – Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer and the same is pending. This Writ Petition is ﬁled aggrieved by the action of the ﬁrst respondent in appointing the third respondent herein by order dated 06.08.2008 as a dealer of the fair price shop in question in the place of the petitioner. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for the respondents 1 and 2. As could be seen from the impugned order, the third respondent herein has been appointed only on temporary basis so as to avoid inconvenience to the cardholders. Such an appointment, which is made in the interest of public, does not warrant interference by this Court. Since admittedly the appointment is only on temporary basis, the right if any acquired by the petitioner cannot be said to have been affected. Hence I ﬁnd no reason to interfere with the impugned order. However, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the Writ Petition with a direction to the ﬁrst respondent to dispose of the appeal pending on his ﬁle, as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as costs. ------------------ G.ROHINI, J. 24.09.2008 C.C. in 3 days B/o kvsn ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{BMR}