IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO : 17683 of 2009 Between: T.Venkataiah, S/o Anthaiah, 39 years, R/o Chakrampally (v), Mominpet (M),R.R.District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Joint Collector-II, R.R. District, Hyderabad and 3 others .....RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION No.17683 of 2009 ORDER: This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking a Writ of Mandamus declaring the order dated 04.07.2009 passed in Appeal Case No.A7/343/2008 and Memo No.I/1874/2007 issued by respondents 1 and 3 respectively, as arbitrary and illegal and a consequential direction to the respondents to appoint the petitioner as Fair Price Shop dealer as per proceedings No.I/1874/2007 dated 24.03.2008 issued by the 2nd respondent. The petitioner and others applied for authorization of fair price shop dealer of Chakrampally village Mominpet Mandal, Rangareddy District. Subsequently, the 2nd respondent-Sub Collector, after conducting written examination, displayed the name of the petitioner in the provisional list of selected candidates on 24.03.2008. Questioning the said order, the 4th respondent herein filed an Appeal Case No.A7/343/2008 before the 1st respondent-joint Collector, who in turn, after perusing the entire material available on record, remanded the matter to the 3rd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer with a direction to examine the individual cases thoroughly and issue speaking order to the eligible candidates. Accordingly, the 3rd respondent issued a memo dated 07.08.2009 directing the candidates mentioned therein to appear before him for the interviews to be held on 25.08.2009 along with original certificates. Hence the writ petition. Heard both sides. In my considered view, the 1st respondent-Joint Collector ought not to have entertained the appeal filed by the 4th respondent for the reason that the 2nd respondent- Sub Collector has not made any appointment so far as the fair price shop dealer is concerned. The 2nd respondent displayed the provisional list of selected candidates only and thereafter after verifying the other aspects of eligibility, i..e, residence and educational qualification of candidates etc., he would issue an order appointing the eligible candidate as fair price shop dealer. However, since the 1st respondent-Joint Collector remanded the matter to the 3rd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer with a direction to examine the individual cases thoroughly and issue speaking order to the eligible candidates, this Court is of the view that the same can be followed by the 2nd respondent- Sub Collector also. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the 3rd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer to examine the individual cases displayed in the provisional list of selected candidates and issue the authorization to one who is fully qualified to be appointed as fair price shop dealer, after taking the written test marks into consideration. No order as to costs. _________________________ (GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J) 24-08-2009 Gsn.