THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY WRIT PETITION No.9373 of 2014 ORDER: (ORAL)

This writ petition is filed seeking following relief:

“… issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in issuing the impugned proceedings No. B2/6411/2012 dt 07.03.2014 in ordering to restore the authorization of 5th respondent as Fair Price Shop Dealer of Hothi K Village, Zaheerabad Mandal, Medak District by withdrawing the earlier suspension order though the ineligibility of the 5th respondent as Fair Price Shop dealer by running a Kirana and General Store at Hothi K Village is being continued as on day and though the report submitted by the 4th respondent is very clear that the 5th respondent is not eligible to be continued as Fair Price Shop dealer as illegal unlawful contrary to law and consequently direct the 3rd respondent to cancel the authorization of the 5th respondent as Fair Price Shop Dealer of the above village and pass… ”

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner is holding ration card No.WAP173000900417 of Shop No.9 of Hothi K Village. As per the Control Order 2008 and the conditions of notification at Sl. Nos.3 and 15, respondent No.5 is not eligible to be appointed as fair price shop dealer as he owns separate Kirana and General Store in Hothi K Village. On the complaint of the petitioner, respondent No.2 directed respondent No.4 to conduct enquiry and submit report on the eligibility of respondent No.5. Thereafter, respondent No.4 has conducted enquiry and submitted report to the effect that respondent No.5 being Fair Price Shop dealer also running a Kirana and General Store in the village and the card holders have alleged that all the essential commodities of Fair Price Shop had been diverted to the Kirana and General Store. Basing on the said report, respondent No.3 has issued order dated 17.12.2012 suspending the Fair Price Shop license of respondent No.5 pending enquiry and alternative arrangements were made for distributing the essential commodities at Hothi K Village.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that respondent No.3 without giving any notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioner passed impugned order dated 07.03.2014 withdrawing the suspension order of respondent No.5 and restoring the authorization of respondent No.5 by referring to the orders issued by respondent No.2. It is further stated that respondent No.5 is still continuing his business of Kirana and General Store at Hothi K Village and without recording any finding as to the eligibility of respondent No.5 as FPS dealer and that he owns a separate Kirana and General Store, the impugned order was passed, which is contrary to the provisions of the Control Order, 2008.

4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and, perused the material on record. No representation on behalf of respondent No.5.

5. As seen from the record, the petitioner has lodged a complaint against respondent No.5 alleging that he is not eligible to hold FPS dealership. Respondent No.3 in his discretion suspended authorization of respondent No.5 and subsequently after enquiry was conducted respondent No.3 has passed the impugned order dated 07.03.2014 restoring the authorization of respondent No.5 as FPS dealer. The respondent No.3 observed in the impugned order that lenient view is taken, as the irregularities committed by the respondent No.5 was for the first time and imposed a penalty of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand only) and let him off with a warning to be careful in future. This Court is of the opinion that, the petitioner does not have any locus standi to challenge the impugned proceedings as respondent No.3 being the appointing/disciplinary authority, has exercised his discretion and restored the FPS dealership of respondent No.5.

6. In view of the above observat