1 APHC010050692019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] TUESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 2361/2019 Between: Azeemunissa and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND The State Of Ap and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. SODUM ANVESHA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. K JANAKIRAMI REDDY 2. T BHEEMANNA 3. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES (AP) The Court made the following order: Impugning the memo issued by the 1st respondent vide Memo No.76/CS-I/2018 dated 27.11.2018 and the consequential notice issued by the 5th respondent vide Rc.No.A2/5/2017 dated 29.01.2019, the present writ petition is filed. 2 2. Heard Sri V.V.N.V.Teja, learned counsel representing learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri T.Bheemanna, learned counsel for unofficial respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners in elaboration to what has been stated in the affidavit contended that, pursuant to cancellation of authorization of unofficial respondents, the RDO has appointed the petitioners’ DWARCA groups as temporary fair price shop dealers for the shop Nos.0683010, 0683008, 0683012 & 0683009 in Gudivada Town respectively in their place. He further submitted that, aggrieved by the order of cancellation, the 9th respondent preferred revision before the Government (1st respondent) which was allowed vide Memo No.76/CS-I/2018 dated 27.11.2018 by setting aside the cancellation order of the RDO as well as the consequential orders of the Joint Collector & District collector, subject to outcome of the criminal case registered against him. He further submitted that, the 9th respondent alone, has preferred revision, with regard to shop No.9 (0683009) and the 1st respondent has issued memo but the 5th respondent (tahsildar), by virtue of the said impugned memo, has issued impugned notices vide Rc.No.A2/5/2017 dated 29.01.2019 directing all the petitioners to handover the e-PO’s machine, electronic weighing machine, balance stock and other items available in the shop to the unofficial respondents with immediate effect. He further submitted that, without there being any suspension or cancellation, the tahsildar has no power to restore the fair price shops to the unofficial respondents. As such prayed to pass appropriate orders in that regard. 3 4. On the other hand, Sri T.Bheemanna, learned counsel for unofficial respondents contended that, the petitioners are appointed only on temporary basis and cannot question the impugned notices. He further submitted that, the petitioners have never questioned the revision filed by the 9th respondent however, by efflux of time, the fair price shops were already handed over to the unofficial respondents, who are permanent dealers and they are running the shops. As such there remains nothing for adjudication and prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 5. Perused the record and considered the submissions of both the learned counsel. 6. Admittedly, the second revision filed by the 9th respondent before the 1st respondent was not questioned by the petitioners wherein his cancellation orders as confirmed by Joint collector & District Collector were set aside Memo No.76/CS-I/2018 dated 27.11.2018. Now, by virtue of the said memo, the 5th respondent has issued impugned notices directing all the petitioners to handover the e-PO’s machine, electronic weighing machine, balance stock and other items available in the shop to the unofficial respondents. However, there are no interim orders in favor of the petitioners and by efflux of time, the fair price shops were already handed over to the unofficial respondents who are permanent dealers and they are running the shops. It is well settled that an appointment as a temporary dealer is typically made as a stop-gap arrangement to ensure the continuous distribution of essential commodities, often upon the suspension or cancellation of a regular dealer. Such temporary 4 appointees do not acquire a vested right to be regularized or to claim the dealership permanently. In view of the same, the writ petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI BRS