IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE NINETH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V. SEETHAPATHY WRIT APPEAL NO : 991 of 2009 Between: P. Chennabasappa ..... APPELLANT AND 1 The District Collector, Medak District and three others. . .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant: SRI K.V.RAGHUVEER Counsel for the Respondents.: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES & SRI N. SRIDHAR REDDY The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V. SEETHAPATHY WRIT APPEAL NO :991 of 2009 JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Smt Justice T. Meena Kumari) The present writ appeal has been filed against the interlocutory order passed by the learned single Judge in WVMP No.1828 of 2009 and WPMP No.8398 of 2009 in WP No.6431 of 2009, dated 30.6.2009. The appellant herein is the writ petitioner. He filed the above writ petition challenging the proceedings issued by the 3rd respondent cancelling the authorization of his fair price shop in Mavelli Village, Alladurg Mandal, Medak District and the proceedings issued by respondents 1 and 2 confirming the proceedings of the 3rd respondent, without giving any opportunity by supplying the copy of enquiry report. On 26.3.2009 while admitting the writ petition, the learned single Judge passed an interim order directing the respondents to continue the petitioner to operate the fair price shop in Mavelli Village, Alladurg Mandal, Medak District, pending disposal of the writ petition. On that, the respondents filed the above WVMP seeking to vacate the interim order, dated 26.3.2009. The learned single Judge having observed that the writ petitioner has failed to get his authorization renewed from 1.4.1995 and he does not have valid authorization and therefore, it is not appropriate to permit the writ petitioner to distribute the essential commodities, vacated the interim order dated 26.3.2009. Having aggrieved by the same, the present writ appeal has been filed by the writ petitioner. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned Government Pleader and perused the material available on record. On a perusal of the material available on record, it is apparent that one of the grounds for cancellation of authorization is that the appellant-wrpit petitioner has failed to get his authorization renewed. It is also admitted by the learned Counsel for the appellant-writ petitioner. In the absence of valid authorization, the appellant cannot be permitted to continue fair price shop as rightly observed by the learned single Judge. Therefore, we feel that the order of the learned single Judge does not suffer from any irregularity or illegality warranting interference of this Court. Hence, this appeal is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed. No costs. However, in view of the nature of the matter, Registry is directed to post the writ petition immediately after Dasara Vacation, at the top of the list. _______________________ Justice T.Meena Kumari ________________________ Justice G.V. Seethapathy Dated: 9th September, 2009 Nn THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V. SEETHAPATHY WRIT APPEAL NO :991 of 2009 (Judgment of the Division Bench delivered by the Hon’ble Smt Justice T. Meena Kumari) 9th September, 2009