Writ Petition No. 30714 of 2011 · Andhra Pradesh High Court

Even though the petitioner has impugned the orders of the District Collector, Nalgonda District, the 1st respondent herein, vide proceedings No.CS2/1554/2011, dated 04-06-2011 bifurcating the fair price shop of the petitioner into two shops viz., Yerrapahad-I and Yerrapahad-II (new shop), at

the hearing Sri Mavidi Rama Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the interest of the petitioner be protected by directing not to appoint a new dealer in respect of shop No.1, hence this Writ Petition is being disposed of at the stage of admission with the consent of learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader. Brief facts are that, the petitioner was granted an authorization to run a fair price shop of Yerrapahad Village of Noothankal Mandal, Nalgonda District. Initially the authorization of the petitioner was cancelled as a temporary measure by orders of the Revenue Divisional Officer dated 24-12-

2010. Subsequently, the authorization was cancelled after following due procedure by orders of the Revenue Divisional Officer, dated 01-02-2011. The petitioner preferred an appeal to the Joint Collector and the same was dismissed by orders dated 20-08-2011, thus confirming the orders of cancellation. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred a revision petition to the 1st respondent-District Collector and the same is pending consideration. In the meanwhile, the impugned order has been passed whereunder the fair price shop has been bifurcated into two shops viz., Yerrapahad-I and Yerrapahad-II. Since the revision petition filed by the petitioner is still pending consideration, this petitioner has filed this writ petition to protect his interest. The learned Assistant Government Pleader has placed a copy of the instructions dated 21-11-2011 received by him in the matter. It is not in dispute that the impugned notification is issued in order to appoint fair price shop dealers to both the shops. It is also not in dispute that the revision petition of the petitioner is under examination by the District Collector. It cannot therefore be said that there is a clear vacancy for making an appointment to shop No.1. If the revision petition is allowed in favour of the petitioner, the authorization of the petitioner is liable to be restored and no fresh appointment thereto can be legally granted. For the aforesaid reasons, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing that the process of the appointment including the interviews might go on, but orders of appointment shall not be issued until the disposal of the revision petition. The issue of appointment orders shall be subject to the result of the revision petition. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. ________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J. 21st November, 2011. Note : Issue operative portion by wire at party’s costs. B/O skmr​