IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No: 24062 of 2005 BETWEEN: K.E. Vemana Goud S/o. K.E. Narayana Goud, R/o. Plot No. 36, Bhupal Nagar, Kurnool ... PETITIONER AND 1 The Joint Collector, Kurnool, Kurnool District 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kurnool, Kurnool District 3 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Kurnool, Kurnool District. 4 E. Ravi S/o. Pedda Venkata Swamy, R/o. Bhupal Nagar, Kurnool ...RESPONDENTS 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 issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in issuing the proceedings vide Rc.B.690/2005 dated 28.10.2005 appointing the 4th respondent as a new Fair Price Shop Dealer by creating a new Fair Price Shop at Bhupal Nagar by bifurcating the existing F.P. Shop of the petitioner is illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents to authorize the petitioners F.P. Shop at Bhupal Nagar and pass such other order or orders as this Hon`ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.K.V.CHALAPATHI RAO Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: ORDER: Petitioner, fair price shop dealer of Nandanpalli Village of Karimnagar District, questions the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer dated 28.10.2005 in appointing the fourth respondent as a temporary dealer pursuant to the orders of the Collector, Civil Supplies, dated 28.07.2005. 2. The petitioner has not at all questioned the bifurcation orders of the Collector, Kurnool District dated 28.07.2005 but he has only questioned the consequential orders of temporary appointment of fourth respondent pending finalization of appointment of new dealer for the newly created shop. As it being a consequential order no stay was granted either with regard to the appointment of the temporary dealer or with regard to the creation of new shop. The writ petition being of the year 2005, I am of the opinion that a new dealer might have already been appointed, as such nothing survives in the writ petition for adjudication. The writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ V. ESWARAIAH, J April 29, 2008 DSK