IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.20986 of 2010 Between: Ganapavarapu Rambabu, S/o.Narsimha Murthy, Aged 39 years, R/o.H.No.2-246/1, Vemuluru Village, Kovvur Mandal, West Godavari District … Petitioner And The District Collector, Civil Supplies Wing, West Godavari District, Eluru, and 2 others … Respondents Order: This writ petition is filed with a prayer as under: “For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is hereby prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue order or direction more particularly in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No.2 in appointing the 3rd respondent as a Fair Price Shop Dealer, Shop No.50 of Vemuluru Village, Kovvur Mandal, West Godavari District as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the guidelines issued by the Government of A.P. in G.OMs.No.52 dated 18- 12-2008 and consequently direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner as a Fair Price Shop Dealer for shop No.50, Vemuluru Village, as he is fully qualified as per the guidelines framed by the Government as per G.O.Ms.No.52 dated 18-12-2008 and to pass such further order or orders as are necessary in the interest of justice.” The grievance of the petitioner, a resident of Vemuluru Village, Kovvur Mandal, West Godavari District, is that the third respondent herein is not eligible for appointment as Fair Price Shop Dealer in view of the guidelines issued by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.52 dated 18-12-2008 as he is already a beneficiary of a Government scheme, namely Gramodhaya Scheme, but, respondents 1 and 2, are proposing to select him as Fair Price Shop Dealer with regard to Shop No.50 of Vemuluru Village. When the matter is taken up, it is submitted by the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 2 that no appointment order has been issued in favour of the third respondent and the petitioner has approached this court only with an apprehension. It is further submitted by the learned Government Pleader that in the interviews held, the petitioner secured 4 marks, whereas the third respondent secured 9 marks. It is to be seen that the petitioner has approached this court with a mere apprehension that his claim may not be considered. In case his claim is overlooked, it is always open to him to avail the remedy of appeal before the Joint Collector and further remedy of revision before the District Collector under the provisions of the A.P. State Public Distribution System (Control) Order, a Control Order framed under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. In the absence of any appointment orders issued as on today, there is no cause of action to entertain this writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ___________________ (R. SUBHASH REDDY, J) October 7, 2010 MRR