WP/6261/2006 of Bandaru ball Ram S/o Mr. Narayana Vs The Commissioner Civil Supplies Department of on 26 December 2006

ORAL ORDER:

This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus declaring the action of therespondents in not considering the representation of the petitioners dated 2.2.2006for renewing/issuing fresh authorization in the light of CircularRc.No.CCS.Ref.No.N5/8777/04 issued by the first respondent as arbitrary andillegal.

It appears, all the petitioners are authorized fair price shop dealers of their respectiveshops in Sirpur town, Adilabad district. While so, a notification dated 1.5.2004 wasissued by the second respondent calling applications for allotment of fair priceshops. Aggrieved by the same, petitioners in fact earlier filed W.P.No.8979 of 2004.However, the same was dismissed and thereafter they have carried the matter inappeal before the Division Bench being W.A.No.2222 of 2005. At the time ofadmission of the writ appeal, status quo order was granted, but thereafter the saidappeal was withdrawn by the appellants seeking permission of the Court to file freshwrit petition. Hence, the writ petition.

It is the case of the petitioners that they have made trade deposits for the year 2004-05 and therefore the dealerships were subsisting and during subsisting ofdealerships, the impugned notification was issued for filling up the vacancieswithout canceling or suspending the authorizations of the petitioners, which is notpermissible in law. The renewal of authorization is altogether different fromcancellation. Only when the authorization is cancelled or suspended, probably therespondents are at liberty to fill up such vacancies after notifying the same as perlaw, but not in a case of this nature.

There is no necessity of going into all the details.

In fact the first respondent has issued Circular in Rc.No. CCS.Ref.No.N5/8777/2004in this regard, which reads as under:

“After careful examination of the matter, it is clarified that as per sub-clause 5(iii) of clause 5 of A.P.S.P.D.S. (Control) Order, 2001, if anapplication for renewal of authorization is not received within onemonth after expiry of its validity, the authorization shall cease to bevalid and the entire security deposit shall be forfeited. If the dealer isduly appointed by the competent authority and his authorizationceased to be valid, he has to apply for authorization afresh which willbe accorded by the competent authority as in the case of grant ofnew/fresh authorization. Thus, interference that the F.P. Shopdealership has to be re-notified is totally wrong. The appointment ofF.P. shop dealer is different from grant of authorization and ifauthorization ceased to be valid, his appointment cannot beconsidered as invalid. Therefore there is nothing wrong in issue of afresh authorization to a dealer after forfeiture of the entire security deposit and after getting the new security deposit and any fee asapplicable.

All the Collectors/Chief Rationing Officer, Hyderabad are requested tofollow these instructions scrupulously.”

In spite of making representations on 2.2.2006, the cases of the petitioners were notconsidered for renewal/issue of fresh authorization as per the above instructions.

In view of the above, without expressing any opinion on merits, the secondrespondent is directed to consider the representation purported to have been madeby the petitioners on 2.2.2006 in the light of the CircularRc.No.CCS.Ref.No.N5/8777/2004 issued by the first respondent and passappropriate orders within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy ofthis order. Till such time, status quo as on today shall continue.

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs.

Date: 26.12.2006

_____________

C.V.RAMULU, J

DA

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESHAT HYDERABAD

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU

W.P.No.6261 of 2006

Date: 26[th] December, 2006

Between:

Bandaru Bali Ram & others.

And

.. Petitioners

The Commissioner, Civil Supplies,Department of Civil Supplies, Government of A.P., Hyderabadand others.

.. Respondents