IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.21472 of 2007 Between: Boreddi Madhavi … Petitioner And The Revenue Divisional Officer, Rajampet, Kadapa District & another. … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri L.J. Veera Reddy Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Civil Supplies The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.21472 of 2007 ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not releasing the stock of essential commodities for the month of October 2007 in favour of the petitioner in respect of Govindayapalli Village, B.Kodur Mandal, Kadapa District, as illegal and arbitrary. In pursuance of the notification issued by respondent No.1, the petitioner applied for appointment of dealer for Govindayapalli fair price shop. As no other candidate has applied, she was selected and appointed as dealer by proceedings dated 24.08.2007 of respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 in the said order directed the Tahsildar, B.Kodur, to submit authorization proposals of the petitioner. In her affidavit, the petitioner pleaded that respondent No.2 has asked her to remit Rs.29,972/- by way of demand draft in favour of A.P. State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, Kadapa, that accordingly she obtained the demand draft from the Rayalaseema Grameena Bank, Kodur branch on 05.10.2007 and submitted the same to the Mandal Level stock point, that when the stock was about to be delivered, the same was suddenly stopped by the respondents and that her enquiries revealed that the intervention by local MLA was the reason for such stoppage. The petitioner therefore filed the present writ petition. In the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.1, it is inter alia admitted that the petitioner was appointed as fair price shop dealer. However, it is stated that the petitioner has not applied for grant of dealership authorization and therefore she was not allowed to lift the stocks. In my opinion, the above stand taken by respondent No.1 in his counter affidavit is rather strange. When the petitioner was appointed as fair price shop dealer, it is the duty and responsibility of the officer concerned to ensure that the authorization is issued in pursuance of the appointment order. Indeed, such a direction was given by respondent No.1 to respondent No.2. It is not the pleaded case of the respondents that the petitioner refused to receive the authorization or failed to comply with any legal requirement for issuance of authorization. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the action of the respondents in not allotting the essential commodities to the petitioner on the purported ground of non-issue of authorization cannot be sustained in law. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. If the authorization has not already been issued, the respondent shall issue a notice to the petitioner for that purpose. If the petitioner is liable to comply with lawful requirements for issue of such authorization, the respondents shall issue authorization and allot the essential commodities to the petitioner on compliance of such requirement. This exercise shall be completed within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is allowed. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition in the manner indicated above, WPMP.No.27843 of 2007 and WVMP.No.182 of 208 are disposed of as infructuous. __________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 21.06.2010. ES