IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 16874 of 2005 Between: C.Surya Prakash Reddy S/o.Chinna Nagi reddy Chinna Jalalpuram Village, Singanamala Mandal Anantapur District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Joint Collector Anantapur. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer Anantapur. 3 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Singanamala Mandal Anantapur District. 4 Smt.Savitramma Chinna Jalalpuram Village, Singanamala Mandal Anantapur District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction declaring the order of the 1st respondent passed in Rc.No.K4/ARP/614/05 dt.2.4.7.2005 in so far directing to implement the order dt.25.5.2005 and the order of the 2nd respondent passed in Rc.No.CS/816/05 dt.16.7.2005 as illegal arbitrary and consequently direct the respondent to continue the petitioner as temporary fair priuce shop dealer of Chinna Jalalpuram Village Singanamala Mandal, Anantapur District. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.O.MANOHER REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following Order: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.16874 of 2005 ORDER: One Smt. Suneethamma was authorized Fair Price Shop (FPS) dealer of Chinna Jalalpuram Village, Singanamala Mandal, Anantapur District. She was placed under suspension and subsequently her authorization was cancelled. One Smt. Savitramma, fourth respondent herein, was appointed as temporary FPS dealer. On an allegation made against her that she diverted kerosene oil from PDS to black market, her authorization was also suspended. When the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer (MRO), third respondent herein, proposed the name of the petitioner, by proceedings dated 03.03.2005, the Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer (RDO), second respondent herein, appointed the petitioner as temporary FPS dealer till the enquiry against permanent dealer is completed or till new permanent dealer is appointed. In the meanwhile fourth respondent ﬁled an appeal before the Joint Collector, ﬁrst respondent herein. While disposing of stay application, vide orders 25.05.2005, ﬁrst respondent directed second respondent not to appoint any temporary dealer and make alternative arrangements by tying up FPS in question with neighbouring FPS till disposal of the appeal. Subsequently by proceedings 10.05.2005 temporary authorization of fourth respondent was cancelled by second respondent. She then preferred an appeal before ﬁrst respondent. In said appeal the petitioner herein was arrayed as third respondent. Be that as it is ﬁrst respondent by order dated 24.07.2005 rejected the appeal of fourth respondent and observed that it is not desirable to continue the petitioner as temporary dealer. In view of the same RDO passed orders on 16.07.2005 terminating the temporary dealership of the petitioner, aggrieved by which instant writ petition is filed. A detailed counter-aﬃdavit is ﬁled by ﬁrst respondent admitting the factual background. It is, however, stated that in view of the temporary arrangement made after cancellation/suspension of authorization of permanent dealer, it was thought that another temporary dealer should not be appointed and that FPS in question should be tied up with the neighbouring FPS to ensure proper distribution of essential commodities to the cardholders. The peculiar factual background would show that when permanent dealer was suspended a temporary dealer was appointed. Again appointing the petitioner as temporary dealer would certainly create hurdles for authorities in taking steps for proper distribution of essential commodities. In that view of the matter, order passed by ﬁrst respondent directing removal of the petitioner as FPS dealer is justiﬁed. Secondly though ﬁrst respondent passed order on 25.05.2005 directing RDO not to continue temporary dealer, curiously the petitioner, who was party said proceedings, did not challenge the same before revisional authority or this Court. In addition to this, while admitting the writ petition, this Court did not pass interim orders. It is now brought to the notice of this Court that the temporary arrangement is being continued. In view of the same, this Court is of the considered opinion that second respondent - RDO should take necessary steps for ﬁlling up the vacancy, if the appeal ﬁled by permanent dealer - Suneethamma has already been disposed of. The writ petition, with the above observations, is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _____________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 21st October, 2008 GHN Note: Dispatch order copy in one week. (By order) ys To 1 The Joint Collector Anantapur. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer Anantapur. 3 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Singanamala Mandal Anantapur District 4 2CCs to GP for Civil Supplies 5 2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{MPL}