HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 20428 OF 2010 Date: 25.08.2010 Between: Ambedkar Mahila Mandali. … Petitioner And State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Secretary, Consumer Affairs, Food and Civil Supplies (CS.I) & others. … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 20428 OF 2010 ORDER: As the authorization granted to the fair price shop dealer of P.Chintalapalli village of Putlur Mandal in Anantapur District was suspended, the petitioner-Mahila Mandali, was kept in charge of the said fair price shop, vide proceedings issued by the Tahsildar, Putlur Mandal, in proceedings Rc.No.B/102/2010, dated 20th of May 2010. By further proceedings, dated 13th August 2010, issued by the Tahsildar, Putlur Mandal in Rc.No.B/235/2010, the earlier proceedings, dated 20th of May 2010, are cancelled and respondent No.4 is kept incharge of the said fair price shop, for distribution of essential commodities. It is the grievance of the petitioner that there is no reason for changing the inchargeship from petitioner to the 4th respondent. On written instructions, it is submitted by the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents, that there were repeated complaints made by the villagers of P.Chintalapalli, against the incharge fair price shop dealer i.e. the petitioner herein, as such, the impugned orders are passed, placing respondent No.4 as incharge of the said fair price shop. Even according to the petitioner, the Ambedkar Mahila Mandali is only a temporary dealer, kept in charge of the fair price shop, as much as the authorization of the earlier permanent dealer was suspended. As the petitioner is only an incharge, it is always open for the respondents to change the incharge dealer, when complaints are made by the cardholders. In view of the submission made by the learned Government Pleader that there were repeated complaints against the petitioner, I do not find any illegality in placing the 4th respondent as incharge for the fair price shop at P.Chintalapalli village, in place of the petitioner. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 25th August 2010 ajr