THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.3760 of 2011 Dated 28th February, 2011 Between: M.Anasuyamma …Petitioner And The Revenue Divisional Officer, Dharmavaram, Ananthapur District and another …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri N.Ranga Reddy Counsel for respondent: AGP for Civil Supplies The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not supplying the essential commodities to the petitioner in respect of Shop No.5 of Kuntimaddi Village, Ramagiri Mandal, Ananthapur as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner sought for a consequential direction to the respondents to continue to supply the essential commodities to her for distribution to the cardholders attached to Shop No.5. I have heard Sri N.Ranga Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. The petitioner was appointed as fair price shop dealer on temporary basis in respect of the above-mentioned shop. Until the month of January, 2011, she was supplied with the essential commodities and for the month of February, 2011, respondent No.2 refused to receive the demand draft from her without assigning any reasons and stopped releasing the stocks. The petitioner asserted that her authorisation is in subsistence and that no dealer has been appointed in her place either temporarily or permanently. When this writ petition came up for admission on 18.02.2011, this Court, while granting time to the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies for reporting instructions, directed the respondents to continue to supply the essential commodities to the petitioner for distribution, if her authorisation continues to subsist as on that date. Today, at the hearing, the learned Assistant Government Pleader, on instructions, submitted that the petitioner’s authorisation has not been suspended or varied as on today and that no dealer has been appointed in her place. In my opinion, so long as the petitioner’s authorisation subsists, notwithstanding the fact that she is a temporary dealer, she is entitled to distribute the essential commodities. As no reasons are forthcoming to withhold stocks to the petitioner, the writ petition is allowed by directing the respondents to permit her as fair price shop dealer till permanent appointment is made or her authorisation is varied in any manner. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, the interim order, dated 18.02.2011, granted by this Court, shall stand vacated and W.P.M.P.No.4662 of 2011 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 28th February, 2011 VGB