IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF APRIL, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.27569 of 2007 Between: B. Sankaramma … Petitioner AND The Joint Collector, Chittoor, Chittoor District & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : None Counsel for respondents 1 to 3: AGP for Civil Supplies Counsel for respondent No.4: Sri K. Rammohan Mahadeva This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.27569 of 2007 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed for a writ of Certiorari to quash proceedings dated 03.03.2007 of respondent No.2, whereby respondent No.4 has been appointed as dealer of a newly created fair price shop of Dalvaikothapalli Village. At the hearing, there is no representation for the petitioner. Heard the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Sri K.Rammohan Mahadeva for respondent No.4. In her affidavit, the petitioner stated that she was appointed as a temporary fair price shop dealer of shop No.2 of Dalvaikothapalli Village by proceedings dated 04.01.2003 of respondent No.1 as the authorization of respondent No.4 was cancelled by respondent No.3, that respondent No.2 without issuing any notice for filling up the vacancy of the said shop, appointed respondent No.4 as fair price shop dealer on permanent basis vide proceedings dated 20.07.2004 and that the said appointment without canceling the petitioner’s authorization was illegal. It is also averred that as respondent No.4 is not the resident of the village or panchayat concerned, his appointment is contrary to G.O.Ms.No.53. It is further averred that when the official respondents stopped supply of essential commodities, the petitioner filed WP.No.4193 of 2005 and this Court disposed of the said writ petition at the admission stage on 07.03.2005 directing the said respondents to supply commodities. The petitioner further averred that recently she came to know that respondent No.4 was appointed as fair price shop dealer for shop No.2 of Dalavaikothapalli Village and when she questioned non-supply of the commodities to her, respondent No.2 stated that he issued order dated 18.03.2007, appointing respondent No.4 as fair price shop dealer. The petitioner therefore questioned the said order in this writ petition. In his counter affidavit, respondent No.2 stated that consequent on cancellation of authorization of Dalavaikothapalli fair price shop held by Sri T. Prabhakar, the petitioner was appointed as fair price shop dealer purely on temporary basis subject to certain conditions, that the said appointment was made without any notification or following the procedure prescribed for appointing a regular fair price shop dealer and that the appeal filed by Sri T. Prabhakar was allowed by the Joint Collector, Chittoor subject to imposition of fine of Rs.3,000/- by order dated 28.01.2005. It is further averred that as per order dated 23.07.2004 passed by the District Collector, Chittoor, Dalavaikothapalli Village was bifurcated and a new shop was created as Dalvaikothapalli-II and after issuing notification and following the prescribed appointment procedure, respondent No.2 issued proceedings dated 28.01.2007 appointing respondent No.4 as the fair price shop dealer for the newly created Dalvaikothapalli-II shop on permanent basis. It is also stated that respondent No.4 is a permanent resident of door No.12-121, Model Colony, Dalvaikothapalli Village. Having perused the pleadings, it is evident that the claim of the petitioner that she was appointed as temporary dealer for shop No.2 of Dalvaikothapalli is incorrect. From the abovementioned averments contained in the counter affidavit of respondent No.2, it is clear that while the petitioner was appointed for a brief period as fair price shop dealer of Dalvaikothapalli shop prior to its bifurcation, respondent No.4 is appointed in pursuance of a separate notification issued consequent on the bifurcation of the said shop as shop No.2 of Dalvaikothapalli. Not only that at the time of notification the petitioner was not working as temporary dealer in view of reinstatement of Sri T.Prabhakar in respect of the original shop, the petitioner is wholly unconcerned with the newly created shop. It is not her case that she applied for appointment as fair price shop for the newly created Dalvaikothapalli shop No.2 and overlooking her claim, respondent No.4 has been appointed. The abovementioned facts make it clear that the petitioner mislead this Court by coming out with false allegations. The writ petition is therefore dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.36063 of 2007 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is also dismissed. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 25.04.2008 ES