IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.21770 of 2007 Between: Smt. M. Venkata Laxmi Ramana … Petitioner And The Joint Collector, West Godavari District, Eluru & others. … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Ch. Krupavanth for Sri K. Chidambaram Counsel for respondents 1&2: AGP for Civil Supplies The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.21770 of 2007 ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside order dated 16.07.2007 of respondent No.2 as confirmed in order dated 22.09.2007 of respondent No.1. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. The petitioner, respondent No.3 and two others have applied for appointment of fair price shop dealer of Kapavaram Village. Following the selection process held by respondent No.2, respondent No.3 was selected as fair price shop dealer by order dated 16.07.2007. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal before respondent No.1, which was rejected by him as time barred. The said order is questioned in this writ petition. In the order passed by respondent No.1, he relied on clause 20(1)(i) of the Andhra Pradesh State Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2001 under which a person aggrieved by any order may file an appeal against such order. On the ground that the petitioner filed the appeal 52 days after passing of the order by respondent No.2, the appeal was rejected. In her affidavit, the petitioner pleaded that though the order of appointment of respondent No.3 was issued on 16.07.2007, she came to know about the same in the last week of July, 2007, that thereafter she made efforts to secure the order copy and got the same in the third week of August 2007 and that the appeal was accordingly filed through her advocate on 05.09.2007. In my opinion, the reasons given by the petitioner for filing the appeal beyond the period of 30 days are too vague. She has not disclosed as to when she has applied for a copy of the order and the exact date on which she has received the same. Therefore, on the facts pleaded by the petitioner, it is not possible for this Court to hold that rejection of her appeal by respondent No.1 as time barred is either illegal or arbitrary. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.28225 of 2007 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is also dismissed. __________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 21.06.2010. ES