N. Venkata Sivaiah v. The Revenue Divisional Officer,

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.4663 of 2012 01.07.2015 Between:

N.Venkata Sivaiah

...Petitioner

And The Revenue Divisional Officer, Penugonda, Anantapur and others

...Respondents

Counsel for the petitioner: Mr.K.Srinivas Counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2: Government Pleader for Civil Supplies (AP) Counsel for respondent No.3: Mr.T.Nagarjuna Reddy The Court made the following:

ORDER:

This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to set aside proceedings in Rc.No.736/2003, dated 10.02.2012 of respondent No.1, whereby he has permitted respondent No.3 to distribute the essential commodities to the cardholders of N.P.Kunta Village and Mandal of Anantapur District. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Respondent No.3 was the permanent fair price shop dealer of shop No.3 of N.P.Kunta Village. On the allegation that she failed to remit demand drafts (DDs) for lifting the essential commodities for the month of January, 2003, her authorization was suspended on 10.04.2003 and the petitioner was temporarily appointed in her place. On 08.11.2011, when the vigilance team found certain irregularities, the

authorization of the petitioner was suspended by respondent No.2. Questioning the said order, the petitioner filed W.P.No.31478 of 2011. On the strength of an order of interim suspension passed by this Court in the said writ petition, the petitioner was allowed to continue as the fair price shop dealer. Nine years after suspension of the authorization of respondent No.3 and issuance of show cause notice on the allegation that she failed to properly account for food for work rice of 501.79 quintals, considering her explanation, respondent No.1 has directed respondent No.2 to verify the records and recover the value of unaccounted rice meant for food for work which was not distributed to labourers and that till then respondent No.3 shall be allowed for remittance of DDs. Assailing this order, the petitioner filed this writ petition. On 24.

06.2015, as no counter-affidavit was filed, this Court directed respondent No.1 to be personally present along with record. A counter-affidavit has now been filed. It is, inter alia, stated in the counter-affidavit that on considering the explanation of respondent No.3, respondent No.1 has restored her dealership, vide proceedings, dated 23.04.2012. The record produced before the Court contains the said proceedings. A perusal of the proceeding sheet shows that on 02.03.2012, this Court directed that till such time as the authorization of respondent No.3 is not restored, the petitioner shall be permitted to lift and distribute the essential commodities. Having regard to the fact that the authorization of respondent No.3 was restored on 23.04.2012, the petitioner was discontinued as temporary dealer and respondent No.

3 is allowed to function as dealer. Inasmuch as the authorization of respondent No.3 was restored on 23.04.2012 i.e. a few days after filing of this writ petition, the cause on which the writ petition was filed has ceased to exist. The petitioner, being a temporary fair price shop dealer, therefore, cannot claim any right to continue when the authorization of respondent No.3 - permanent fair price shop dealer, was restored by respondent No.1. For the aforementioned reasons, the Writ Petition is dismissed As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, interim order, dated 02.03.

vacated and W.P.M.P.No.5960 of 2012 filed by the petitioner for interim relief shall stand dismissed as infructuous.

__________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 01st July, 2015 GHN