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.20536 of 2007 Between: Tamisetty Laxmamma … Petitioner And The District Collector, Prakasam District at Ongole & others. … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Kasi Nageswara Rao for Sri Palle Nageswar Rao 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.20536 of 2007 ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not supplying the kerosene quota to the petitioner for September, 2007 in pursuance of her hawkership licence, as illegal and arbitrary. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. The petitioner is a physically handicapped person and appointed as kerosene hawker during the year 1985 for Ward No.10 of Markapuram Town, Prakasam District. She averred that the respondents allotted kerosene to her shop till August, 2007 and when the allotment was discontinued from the month of September, 2007, she approached the respondents and has learnt that at the instance of the dealer of shop No.29, her quota was allotted to the said dealer. She pleaded that her licence was neither suspended nor cancelled and therefore the respondents are not justified in law in denying allotment of kerosene quota to her shop. In the counter affidavit filed by the Tahsildar, Markapur, respondent No.3, it is inter alia stated that as complaints were received against the petitioner that she was not residing in Markapur Town and that she was residing in Chandaluru Village, Darsi Mandal and one M.Narasimhulu was distributing the kerosene as binami dealer, a report was submitted to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Markapur by respondent No.3 on 01.09.2007 and that on receipt of the said report, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Markapur, has issued orders permitting the Tahsildar, Markapur to allot kerosene quota pertaining to the petitioner’s shop to shop No.29 with a direction to respondent No.3 to take necessary action for cancellation of the petitioner’s kerosene oil dealership. In pursuance of the said direction, the kerosene quota was allotted to shop No.29. It is further stated that in pursuance of the interim direction dated 01.10.2007 granted by this Court, the kerosene quota was restored to the petitioner by the Revenue Divisional Officer vide his proceedings dated 06.10.2007. From the above averments contained in the counter affidavit, it is evident that so far no action has been initiated for cancellation of petitioner’s licence. The said licence is subsisting as on today. If the petitioner is not residing at the place where the shop is located, the respondents are entitled to initiate appropriate action and terminate her licence in accordance with law. But, without resorting to this procedure, the respondents cannot withhold the quota and allot the same to another dealer so long as the petitioner’s licence continues to be in force. For the abovementioned reasons, the writ petition is allowed. The kerosene quota shall be supplied to the petitioner so long as her authorization continues to be in force. This order, however, does not preclude the respondents from initiating appropriate action for cancellation of the petitioner’s licence if she has violated the conditions of licence or the provisions of the control orders. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition in the manner indicated above, WPMP.No.26560 of 2007 and WVMP.No.2629 of 2008 are disposed of as infructuous. __________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 21.06.2010. ES