THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.9191 OF 2007 DATED 29TH JULY, 2011 BETWEEN Malleswary DWCRA Group, Rep. by Bathula Yadamma, W/o Bhoomiah, aged about 30 years, Occ: Fair Price Shop Dealer, R/o Magdumpur Village, Nangnur Mandal, Medak District. …Petitioner And State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by Secretary, Civil Supplies Dept., Secretariat, Hyderabad and others. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.9191 OF 2007 ORDER: Malleshwari DWCRA Group represented by Bathula Yadamma, Maqdumpur Village, Nangnoor Mandal, Medak District, was appointed the authorized Fair Price Shop Dealer of the Village under proceeding in File No.B/1329/02 of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Siddipet, Medak District, the fourth respondent, in the year 2002. Aggrieved by the action of the fourth respondent in issuing notification dated 20.04.2007 calling for applications from eligible candidates for appointment as the Fair Price Shop Dealer of Maqdumpur Village, the said DWCRA Group filed the present writ petition. This Court, by order dated 27.04.2007, granted interim stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the notification. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Siddipet, filed his counter in the first instance, stating that the petitioner DWCRA Group was appointed temporarily for a period of six months under proceedings dated 11.07.2002 wherein it was stipulated that the appointment was liable to be cancelled without any notice. It was therefore his case that as the very appointment of the petitioner DWCRA Group was on a purely temporary basis, it could have no grievance with regard to the notification issued for appointment of a permanent dealer. He further sought to justify his action in notifying the subject shop under open category. The form of authorization issued in favour of the petitioner DWCRA Group by the fourth respondent dated 11.02.2004 which formed part of the material on record however indicated that the authorization had been continued well beyond the initial period of six months stipulated, if at all, at the time of appointment of the petitioner DWCRA Group in the year 2002. Taking note of the discrepancy in the stand of the fourth respondent and the form of authorization issued by him, this Court directed the fourth respondent to file an additional affidavit and clarify the position in the light of this authorization form. Thereupon, the fourth respondent filed the additional counter affidavit dated 16.07.2011, wherein he once again averred that the petitioner DWCRA Group was appointed temporarily for a period of six months under proceedings dated 11.07.2002 and that it was issued the temporary authorization as per appointment conditions. In effect, the additional counter affidavit is only a reiteration in terms of what was stated in the earlier counter affidavit and nothing useful is forthcoming therefrom. It is however to be noted that the fourth respondent admitted that the petitioner DWCRA Group had sought renewal of its authorization from 01.04.2008 to 31.03.2010 and from 01.04.2010 to 31.03.2012 by paying the requisite fee through challans dated 13.03.2008 and 12.03.2009 respectively. Owing to the pendency of the writ petition, it appears that authorization renewal was not issued but it is not denied that the petitioner DWCRA Group is continuing to function as the Fair Price Shop Dealer of Maqdumpur Village. In the light of the aforestated facts, it is to be seen as to whether the action of the fourth respondent in seeking to notify the subject Fair Price Shop for appointment of a fresh dealer under O.C. category can be sustained. Though it is the consistent stand of the fourth respondent that the petitioner was appointed on a purely temporary basis and at that, for a period of six months, the material placed on record speaks against the same. The form of authorization dated 11.02.2004 issued in favour of the petitioner DWCRA Group by the fourth respondent indicates that the validity of the authorization was extended thereunder upto 31.03.2004. However, clause 16 of this form of authorization states to the effect that the holder of the authorization shall work for a minimum period of five years unless suspended or cancelled by the competent authority. It further states that the resignation, etc., or seeking to leave the dealership shall not be accepted within this minimum period of five years. Needless to state, such a condition would not be imposed in the case of temporary dealers appointed for a period of a mere six months. There is no explanation forthcoming from the fourth respondent as to why such a clause was included in the form of authorization issued to the petitioner DWCRA Group if its appointment was of a purely temporary nature. The record therefore speaks against the claim of the fourth respondent that the appointment of the petitioner DWCRA Group was on a temporary basis. There is also no explanation forthcoming as to why no steps were taken for filling up the dealership on a permanent basis for a period of five years, if the petitioner DWCRA Group had only been appointed on a temporary basis in the year 2002. The proceedings dated 11.07.2002 on the basis of which the fourth respondent claims that the petitioner DWCRA Group was appointed only temporarily have not even been produced for the perusal of this Court. In the light of the aforestated facts, it is clear that the record supports the claim of the petitioner DWCRA Group that it was appointed on a permanent basis. Consequently, the action of the fourth respondent in unilaterally deciding to terminate its dealership and notifying the same for fresh recruitment cannot be countenanced. The impugned notification dated 20.04.2007 is accordingly set aside and the Writ Petition is allowed. WPMP No.11742 of 2007 shall stand dismissed in the light of this final order. No order as to costs. ____________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J. 29TH JULY, 2011. VGSR/PGS