P SURESH SRIMANNARAYANA Vs. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Writ Petitioner, Mr. P. Suresh, filed this writ petition for a writ of Mandamus declaring the order, dated 13. 10. 2001, in proceedings no. B/4075/2001, made by respondent No. 1, selecting respondent No. 3 as Fair Price shop dealer of Shop No. 95, pursuant to the Notification, dated 30. 09. 2001, no. B/2836/2001-1 as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the conditions stipulated in the Notification and consequently, to direct the respondents to set aside the order, dated 13. 10. 2001, in proceedings No. B/4075/2001, made by respondent No. 1 and authorisation issued pursuant thereto.

(2.) SRI A. Prabhakar Rao, the learned Counsel representing the Writ petitioner had taken this Court through the contents of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the counter affidavit filed by respondent No. 3 and also the reply affidavit. The learned Counsel also had drawn the attention of this Court to the interim order made in Writ Petition No. 21145 of 2001 and how the appointment was made during the period of the operation of the interim order and how the appointment to be declared as illegal being contrary to the interim order made by this Court. The learned Counsel also while elaborating his submissions would maintain that both the residential and educational qualifications are not satisfied. The learned Counsel also demonstrate that even from the very application made by respondent No. 3 it is shown in the relevant column as 'non-local', as belonging to Mattewada. The Counsel also explained how respondent No. 3 does not satisfy any of the eligibility criteria. While further elaborating the submissions, the learned Counsel would maintain that though the writ petitioner is treated as a temporary dealer by virtue of the regular authorisation, the petitioner to be treated on par with a regular dealer. The learned Counsel also would maintain that whether such authorisation is in accordance with law or not and validity thereof cannot be decided in the present writ petition. The Counsel would maintain that the question to be decided is whether respondent No. 3 satisfies the eligibility criteria on the aspect of locus standi. The learned Counsel made elaborate submissions. Further, the Counsel would contend that not disturbing this order would amount to an illegal order being continued and the same is impermissible. The Counsel also placed strong reliance on several decisions to substantiate his submissions. The Counsel also pointed out to the nature of interim orders which were made by this Court.

(3.) THE learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies had traced the historical background of this litigation and would maintain that the writ petitioner filed W. P. No. 21145 of 2001 before this Court and this Court was pleased to issue a direction that the selection pursuant in the notification, dated 30. 09. 2001, issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Warangal, may go on, but no authorisation shall be issued in favour of the prospective selection until further orders. The learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies had also drawn the attention of this Court to the writ petitioner filing another writ Petition No. 22409 of 2001 praying for suspension of the proceedings in b/3534/2001, dated 07. 10. 2001, through which Sri R. Srinivas was appointed as temporary fair price shop dealer for 95-Rangasaipet in the month of October, 2001. The learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies also would maintain that the said Writ Petition was disposed of directing the respondents to continue the petitioner as a temporary fair price shop dealer till permanent arrangement is made. However, it is brought to the notice of the Court that in the light of the dismissal of Writ Petition No. 21145 of 2001, the petitioner has no right at all to contend that the petitioner to be continued as a fair price shop dealer of 95-Rangasaipet. In all fairness, the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies had drawn the attention of this Court to the relevant observations made in W. P. No. 21145 of 2001 to the effect that, 'however, this will not preclude the authorities from considering the vacancy being notified afresh for other than S. C. category if it is possible as per the Government orders in vogue'. The learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies also would maintain that respondent No. 3 filed Writ Petition No. 20317 of 2006 before this court and this Court directed Revenue Divisional Officer, Warangal to dispose of the representation purported to have been filed by said Kandukuri Parijatham and pass appropriate orders and she had also filed C. C. No. 350 of 2007 and this Court passed orders on 18. 06. 2007 to the effect that the said Parijatham to file appropriate representation before the Revenue Divisional Officer concerned within a period of 10 days and the said Revenue Divisional Officer to dispose of the same and pass appropriate orders within a period of three weeks. The learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies also had drawn the attention of this Court the said Parijatham had been informed vide office Memo no. E/4381/2004, dated 30. 06. 2007, that notification to fill up the vacancy of fair Price Shop No. 95 is being issued and her application is on record and she will also be called for interview on par with the other applicants. But however, this Court observed that after perusing the proceedings issued by the respondent, this Court was of the opinion that the said order was not in tune with the spirit of the judgment of this Court. Hence, the learned Government pleader for Civil Supplies would submit that on his advise, an authorisation was issued in pursuance of her appointment as per the notification. The learned government Pleader for Civil Supplies ultimately, would conclude that the writ petitioner has no right to claim any of the reliefs prayed for in the present writ petition.