IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION No. 1656 OF 2003 DATED: 23-11-2006 BETWEEN: Smt. Billa Nagamani ………Petitioner AND The District Collector and District Magistrate, Prakasam District, Ongole and two others ………Respondents THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION No. 1656 OF 2003 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a mandamus to declare proceedings No.D.Dis.No.CS2/3900/2002 dated 09-01-2003 of the 1st respondent as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14, 19 (1) (g), 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India. It appears that the petitioner is the fair price shop dealer of Kakarla Village, Ardhaveedu Mandal, Prakasam District. She was appointed on permanent basis by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Markapur Division vide proceedings No.Dis H/1639, dated 12-09-2001. The 3rd respondent was appointed on permanent basis prior to the appointment of the petitioner. However, on cancellation of the authorization held by him, the petitioner was appointed with effect from 12-09-2001. Aggrieved by the cancellation of his authorization, the 3rd third respondent filed an appeal before the Joint Collector, who allowed the appeal by an order dated 05-08-2002 and directed restoration of the authorization of the 3rd respondent. Questioning the same, the petitioner herein carried the matter in revision before the District Collector. The District Collector through the impugned order rejected the revision of the petitioner herein. Hence the writ petition. There is no necessity of going into all the details of the matter. As per proceedings dated 12-09-2001 issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, it is clear that the petitioner Smt. Billa Nagamani has been appointed as a dealer on permanent basis of Kakarla Village. This, according to the learned Government pleader, is not in accordance with the procedure prescribed in law. It is stated that the vacancy has not been notified and selection was not conducted for filling up the vacancy. Learned counsel for the 3rd respondent states that the impugned order passed by the District Collector is perfectly valid and justified in view of the fact that the Joint Collector allowed the appeal filed by the 3rd respondent and therefore, he is entitled to continue as the dealer of the fair price shop in question and that the order dated 12-09-2001 was passed without waiting for disposal of the appeal by the higher authority. Be that as it may, since it is not in dispute that the appointment of the petitioner is on permanent basis, her authorization has to be cancelled as per the procedure prescribed in law i.e. putting the petitioner on notice and calling for explanation. The 3rd respondent is not automatically entitled for restoration of his authorization though the appeal filed by him was allowed. In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents not to disturb the authorization held by the petitioner unless and until the same is cancelled by following due process of law. No order as to costs. ______________________ (C.V. RAMULU, J) Dated: 23-11-2006 ks