Telangana High Court
WP/24695/2004 of G. Sreenivasulu, Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer, on 29 December 2004
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No: 24695 of 2004 Between: G. Sreenivasulu, S/o G. Narayana, Hindu, Vaddupalli
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND FOUR
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY
WRIT PETITION No: 24695 of 2004
Between:
G. Sreenivasulu, S/o G. Narayana, Hindu, Vaddupalli Village, Atmakur (M), Ananthapur District.
..... PETITIONER
AND The Revenue Divisional Officer, Anantapur, Anantapur District.
.....RESPONDENT
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in thecircumstances stated in the affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased toissue an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in nature of writ ofMandamus declaring the action of the respondent issuing Notification in RC.No.D1/CS/1649/2002, dt. 16-11-2004, for inviting applications from the physicallyHandicapped candidates, for F.P. Shop dealer ship of Vaddupalli Village, AtmakurMandal, Ananthapur District, violating the Guidelines for selection and appointmentof F.P. Shop dealer issued by Government of Andhra Pradesh in G.O.Ms.No. 53dated 6-10-2003, as illegal, unjust, unsustainable, unwarranted.Counsel for the Petitioner: KOTHAPALLI RAM MOHAN CHOWDARYCounsel for the Respondent: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES
The Court at the admission stage made the following:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
The petitioner was appointed as a Fair Price Shop Dealer on temporary basis. Hechallenges the action of the respondent in taking steps to appoint a dealer for thevery shop on regular basis. It is alleged that the respondent has not followed theprocedure prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.532, dated 06.10.2003. .
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for CivilSupplies.
It is not in dispute that the petitioner was appointed as a temporary dealer. Hecannot have any right to continue as Dealer for indefinite period. Except makinggeneral allegations, the petitioner is not able to point out any specific allegationagainst the respondent in the matter of appointment of the dealer. At any rate, unlessthe petitioner is the applicant by himself, the selection process cannot be interdictedat his instance.
Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner shall continue astemporary dealer till a regular dealer is appointed, unless there are any allegationsof irregularities against him. There shall be no order as to costs.
Note: Issue C.C. in one week.
(B/o)
Jsu
_________29.12.2004
To
1. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Anantapur, Anantapur District.
2. 2 CCs to the G.P. for Civil Supplies, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad (OUT).
3. 2CD copies.