HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY W.P.No.30316 of 2010 Date : 20-12-2010 Between : M.Papaiah .. Petitioner And State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Secretary, Civil Supplies Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. and others .. Respondents Counsel for petitioner : Ms.D.Pramada Counsel for respondents : Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies The Court made the following : ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.4 in issuing notification for filling up the purported vacancy of Jadimalkapur fair price shop, Zaheerabad Mandal, Medak District, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner sought for a direction to respondent No.4 to restore the petitioner’s authorization in pursuance of order dated 23-5-2007 of respondent No.3. I have heard Ms.D.Pramada, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. The petitioner was appointed as fair price shop dealer of the above mentioned shop. By order dated 15-9-2006, respondent No.4 has cancelled the petitioner’s authorization on certain allegations. The petitioner filed an appeal questioning the said order. By his order dated 23-5-2007, respondent No.3 has set-aside the order of respondent No.4 while rendering the findings that the irregularities committed by the petitioner are minor in nature and that the punishment of cancellation of authorization does not commensurate with the gravity of the charges. Respondent No.3, however, directed forfeiture of the petitioner’s security deposit by administering a warning to be careful in future. The petitioner averred that though the said order was passed more than 2½ years back, respondent No.4 has not restored his authorization in spite of his going around his office on a number of occasions. In the meantime, respondent No.4 issued a fresh notification calling for applications for filling up of the vacancy. This action of the respondent No.4 is questioned in this Writ Petition. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies, on instructions, submitted that the petitioner’s appeal was allowed by respondent No.3 setting aside the order of cancellation passed by respondent No.4 and that the said order has become final. He has further stated that since the petitioner has not approached respondent No.4 or respondent No.5 for restoration of his authorization, no follow up action was taken and that in view of expiry of substantial time, respondent No.4 has issued the impugned notification. In my opinion, the above stand taken on behalf of the respondents cannot be sustained in law. The inevitable consequence of setting aside of cancellation order is restoration of the authorization. The burden is therefore on the licensing authority to restore the authorization and communicate the same to the petitioner. It is only in the event of the petitioner not responding to such restoration and showing his unwillingness to function as the dealer, that respondent No.4 is entitled to take steps for notifying the vacancy afresh. Having regard to the restoration of authorization, no vacancy is deemed to exist and issuance of the fresh notification for filling up of a non-existent vacancy cannot be countenanced. For the above mentioned reasons, the Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned notification issued by respondent No.4 is set-aside. Respondent No.4 is directed to implement order dated 23- 5-2007 of respondent No.3 by restoring the authorization of the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. ____________________ C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy.,J Date : 20-12-2010 AM AM