IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 6905 of 2008 Between: Sarabu Rajitha, W/o. Venkateshwarlu, R/o. Brahmanpally Village, Madgul Mandla, Mahaboobnagar District. ..... PETITIONER AND The District Collector, Mahabubnagar District, at Mahabubnagar .....RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.M.RAMA RAO Counsel for the Respondent: AGP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare the action of the respondent in issuing notice, dated 25.03.2008 to the petitioner and five other persons to appear before her on 31.03.2008 as illegal. In pursuance of notification, dated 22.01.2008 issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mahabubnagar, the petitioner and five others applied for appointment as fair price shop dealer of old Brahmanpally Village, Madgul Mandal, Mahabubnagar District. The petitioner was selected and appointed as fair price shop dealer. However, the respondent by her proceedings, dated 16.02.2008, set aside the very notification in pursuance of which the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mahabubnagar conducted interviews, selected and appointed the petitioner as fair price shop dealer, apart from setting aside the order of appointment of the petitioner as fair price shop dealer. These proceedings were challenged by the petitioner in Writ Petition No.3992 of 2008. This Court after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies disposed of the said writ petition at the admission stage by quashing order, dated 16.02.2008 passed by the respondent and with the following direction: “In view of the admitted fact that no such notice or opportunity was given to the petitioner, the writ petition is allowed, without going into the allegations of mala fides raised by the petitioner at this stage. The petitioner is given liberty to raise these allegations if and when necessary in future proceedings. Order dated 16.02.2008 is quashed. Respondent No.1 is directed to issue notices to the petitioner and others who are likely to be affected and give them an opportunity of hearing. She shall also pass a reasoned order thereafter and communicate the same to the petitioner and similarly placed persons. Respondent No.1 shall complete this exercise within a period of four weeks from today.” In pursuance of the above-reproduced direction of this Court, the respondent issued the impugned notice to the petitioner and five others, who attended the interview conducted by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mahabubnagar, before the petitioner was appointed as fair price shop dealer. Heard Sri M.Rama Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned notice is given by the respondent evidently to conduct fresh interviews for selection and appointment of fair price shop dealer and that she has no such power. I have carefully considered the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner and I find myself not in agreement with the same. In the above-reproduced order of this Court, the respondent was directed to issue notices to the petitioner and others who are likely to be affected and give them an opportunity of hearing. The purpose of giving that direction was to afford an opportunity not only to the petitioner but also to the other candidates who appeared for interview to object to cancellation of the very notification itself. Therefore, though the other five persons were not appointed, their interests were still affected by cancellation of the notification, because had the notification and the petitioner’s appointment order not been cancelled, any or all of the five candidates would have had the opportunity, if they so choose to file an appeal against the order of appointment of the petitioner as fair price shop dealer. Therefore, this Court felt that all the persons who are affected by cancellation of the notification issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mahabubnagar, were entitled to be given an opportunity to object to the proposed cancellation by the respondent. Though the respondent ought to have given a proper notice indicating therein the purpose for which the same was being given and the proposal against which the petitioner and other candidates were required to file their objections, I am not inclined to quash the impugned notice only for that reason. It is made clear that the purpose of the respondent giving notice shall be to give the petitioner and the other candidates, who appeared for interview, an opportunity of objecting to the cancellation of notification and not for assessing the relative merits and demerits of all the candidates for appointment as fair price shop dealer as being apprehended by the petitioner. The respondent, therefore, shall confine her enquiry to the proposed cancellation of notification only and not to consider the merits or otherwise of the appointment order of the petitioner. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, WPMP.No.9023 of 2008 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is also dismissed. C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 31st MARCH, 2008 kvni