THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.11868 of 2010 Date:23.02.2011 Between: P.Meera Bai ..... Petitioner AND The Joint Collector, Medak and others .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: None appeared Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 3: Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies Counsel for Respondent No.4: Sri S. Sudarshan The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.1 in issuing notification dated 12.05.2010 for appointment of fair price shop dealer of Kushnoor Village as illegal and arbitrary. On 01.02.2011, when the case came up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner requested for an adjournment to explain to the Court as to how the impugned notification can be invalidated as the same was issued consequent on the cancellation of the petitioner’s authorization and in the absence of any order passed by respondent No.1 in the pending appeal of the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner is not present today. I have gone through the record apart from hearing the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies and the learned counsel appearing for the impleaded respondent. Brief facts leading to filing of the present writ petition are that the fair price shop dealership of the petitioner was cancelled following an enquiry into certain irregularities alleged against her, vide order dated 08.02.2010 of respondent No.2. It is the pleaded case of the petitioner that she had filed an appeal before respondent No.1 along with an application for stay and that respondent No.1, by his order dated 02.03.2010, rejected the stay application. The petitioner further pleaded that the said order was questioned by her in W.P.No.7726 of 2010 and that this Court has not interfered with the said order passed by respondent No.1. In the meantime, respondent No.2 issued the impugned notification dated 12.05.2010 calling for applications for appointment by filling up the vacancy arising on account of cancellation of the petitioner’s authorization. Questioning the said notification, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. One person, by name, Kindidoddi Nagaiah filed W.P.M.P.No.40617 of 2010 in this writ petition seeking his impleadment in the present proceedings. By a separate order, this Court allowed the said application today. He has stated in his affidavit filed in support of W.P.M.P.No.40617 of 2010 that in pursuance of the impugned notification, he has filed his application along with several other persons and that he was selected and appointed by respondent No.2, by his order dated 24.05.2010. From the above noted facts, it is evident that the petitioner failed to secure an order of stay of cancellation of her authorization either from respondent No.1 or from this Court in W.P.No.7726 of 2010. In the absence of any such interim order, respondent No.2 was free to fill up the vacancy. That is precisely what he has done through the impugned notification. Inasmuch the impleaded respondent is stated to have already been appointed, no relief as claimed in this writ petition can be granted in favour of the petitioner. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. It is, however, made clear that the appointment of impleaded respondent shall be subject to the result of the appeal pending before respondent No.1. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, interim order dated 26.05.2010 is vacated and W.P.M.P.No.14980 of 2010 and W.V.M.P. (SR)No.165867 of 2010 are dismissed as infructuous. ________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 23rd February, 2011 GHN