THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.21412 of 2006 Date: 02.04.2008 Between: T.Madhusudhan Rao … Petitioner AND The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Secretary, Dept. of Civil Supplies, Hyderabad. And others … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners : Sri Yadava Reddy Counsel for the respondents: G.P. for Prohibition & Excise HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.21412 of 2006 ORDER:- At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare proceedings dated 1.9.2006 of respondent No.2 as illegal. The petitioner is a hawker of kerosene in respect of Circle No.22 of Guntur town. As the permanent hawker of circle No.24 namely, S.Chandrashekar died, the petitioner was kept in charge of circle No.24, purely as a temporary measure. By the impugned proceedings respondent No.2 made respondent No.3 as in charge hawker as she has been the fair-price shop dealer for circle No.24. This order is assailed by the petitioner in this writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no notice was given to the petitioner before passing the impugned order. I have considered this submission and I am not inclined to accept the same. The petitioner is working as a regular hawker in respect of circle No.22. He was merely kept in charge of circle No.24. The learned counsel for the petitioner concedes that there was not even a formal order passed keeping the petitioner in charge. This itself shows that it was purely a temporary arrangement. In the impugned order it is reasoned that according to the latest guidelines the Government expressed its intention that all essential commodities are to be made available at one roof, i.e., at fair-price shop point and opined that orders may be issued by revising the allotment of kerosene quota pertaining to circle No.24 to the concerned fair-price shop dealer of circle No.24. This decision in changing the in-charge arrangement in favour of respondent No.3 appears to be impelled to ensure that the essential commodities alongwith kerosene are made available at the same place. Since, respondent No.3 is already the fair-price shop dealer in respect of circle No.24, she is entrusted with the task of distribution of kerosene as well till a permanent arrangement is made. Since, the petitioner has no legally enforceable right and was merely entrusted with the distribution of kerosene, purely as a temporary measure, there is no need to give him any notice before passing the impugned order. I do not therefore, see any illegality in the order impugned in this writ petition. In this view of the matter, the writ petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.27153 of 2006 filed by the petitioner seeking interim relief is also dismissed. ___________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date:02.04.2008 mdaa