THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA W.P.No.26484 of 2006 18th January, 2010 Between :- S. Vaikunta Rao .. Petitioner And The District Collector, At Machilipatnam Krishna District And others .. Respondents THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA W.P.No.26484 of 2006 ORDER:- Heard Sri G.Dharma Rao, the learned Counsel representing the writ petitioner and the learned A.G.P. for Civil Supplies. 2. The Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records and to quash the order vide proceedings in R.C.A6.7482004 issued by the 1st respondent on 20-1-2006 as contrary to the directions issued in W.P.No.24657/2005 dt.18-11-2005 as it is illegal and arbitrary and directing the respondents herein to allot any new Fair Price Shop in Ranigarithota in Circle-II of Vijayawada without restoring to the cancellation of old Fair Price Shop No.256 of the petitioner which was merged with shop No.263, and pass such other suitable orders. 3. In W.P.M.P.No.26484/2006 this Court made the following Order:- “There shall be interim direction to the respondents not to make any permanent arrangements against the subject Fair Price Shop during pendency of the Writ Petition.” 4. Several facts had been narrated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. The learned Counsel representing the writ petitioner had placed strong reliance on the order made in W.P.No.24657/2005 and the said order reads as hereunder:- “When once the Fair Price Shop dealership of the petitioner has been cancelled on merits, I am not inclined to express any opinion whether the petitioner is entitled to allot new shop by bifurcating the said shop. However, it is the prerogative of the District Collector to consider the bifurcation of the said shop and allot the same to the petitioner. Accordingly, the first respondent is directed to call for remarks from the 2nd respondent pursuant to the recommendation made by the 4th respondent in Rc.A/69/04, dt.___.07.2004 and take decision in accordance with. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.” 5. It is stated that the shop in fact had been bifurcated and certain new shops also came into existence. Despite the same, the 1st respondent had not considered the case of the petitioner in proper perspective. The Counsel also pointed out that the 1st respondent reproduced the operative portion of the order made by this Court and ultimately came to the conclusion that his case for reappointment as Fair Price Shop dealer to be rejected, hence the said order cannot be sustained. However, the learned A.G.P. for Civil Supplies would maintain that in the light of the facts and circumstances since the order under challenge is a speaking order and a well-considered order, the Writ Petition to be dismissed. 6. This Court had carefully gone through the order under challenge and also the order made by this Court in W.P.No.24657/2005 dt.18-11- 2005. The subsequent events also had been brought to the notice of this Court. This Court is not inclined to express any further opinion but in the light of the subsequent events brought to the notice of this Court, let the case of the petitioner be reconsidered in the light of the observations made by this Court in W.P.No.24657/2005. Accordingly, the impugned Order is set aside and the matter is remitted to the 1st respondent to reconsider the same in accordance with law in the light of the observations made in W.P.No.24657/2005. 7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is hereby allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs. ____________________ Justice P.S.Narayana 18th January, 2010 Note: C.C. in one week (B/o.smr)