THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.16650 of 2010 ORDER: In this writ petition, petitioner, who claims to be an agriculturist and a cardholder under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008 (for short ‘the Control Order’), seeks a mandamus by way of direction to respondents 1 to 3 to take action against respondent No.4 based on the representation, dated 19.01.2010. It is the case of the petitioner that he along with several others submitted the representation to the second respondent on 19.01.2010 bringing to his notice about the irregularities and illegalities committed by the fourth respondent, fair price shop dealer, in distribution of scheduled commodities. It is stated that enquiry was conducted by the third respondent and a report was submitted by him. In spite of the same, no action has been taken. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for respondents 1 to 3 produced a letter, dated 13.07.2010 addressed by the second respondent to the Government Pleader for Civil Supplies, and submitted that at the first instance, there was a representation on 15.01.2010 and based on the same, a show cause notice was issued to the fourth respondent vide proceedings No.G/61/2010, dated 15.01.2010. It is further submitted that the fourth respondent submitted explanation, dated 20.01.2010 denying all the charges and requested to drop further proceedings. In the meanwhile, another petition was filed by the villagers on 19.01.2010, as such, the second respondent directed the third respondent to enquire into the matter and report. It is also submitted that such report is awaited and appropriate action will be taken thereafter. The petitioner as a cardholder can bring to the notice of the authorities concerned about the illegalities committed by the fair price shop dealers but he has no legal right to seek directions for taking action against the fourth respondent because it is for the respondent authorities to assess whether the allegations levelled against the fourth respondent are correct or not and whether such allegations warrant initiation of any penal action against him under the provisions of the Control Order or not. Merely basing on his representation submitted to the second respondent, the petitioner cannot seek any mandamus to respondents 1 to 3 for taking action against the fourth respondent in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. As it is stated that the enquiry has already been initiated and further action will be taken subject to the report to be submitted by the third respondent, I dispose of the writ petition permitting respondents 1 to 3 to consider such report and examine whether any further steps are to be taken against the fourth respondent or not. If the allegations are correct as per the report, they shall take appropriate action against the fourth respondent. No order as to costs. ______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 14th JULY, 2010. kvni