ORDER : 1. The petitioners in these writ petitions are fair price shop dealers. Some of the writ petitions are filed challenging the Endorsements dated 24.04.2015 and 29.04.2015 issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Nandyal, Kurnool District, rejecting the applications submitted by the petitioners seeking renewal of their authorizations to run the fair price shops. Some of the writ petitions are filed against the Notification in Rc.No.A/2636/2015 dated 13.11.2015 issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Nandyal, Kurnool District, to fill up the vacancies of the fair price shops in Nandyal Division, wherein the petitioners are working as fair price shop dealers. 2. Since the issue involved in all these Writ Petitions is one and the same, this Court finds it expedient to decide all these cases by common Order. 3. Heard Sri K.S. Murthy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the learned counsel for the petitioners – Smt. Thota Suneetha, Sri Surepalli Prasanth, Smt. Rachna S Waddepalli, Smt. Shantisree Elipe and the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies and perused the material available on record. 4. For the sake of convenience, the details of the writ petitions and writ petitioners who filed the writ petitions challenging the Endorsements and Notification are tabulated hereunder : (A) (B) (C) Name of the petitioner w.p. challenging the endorsement(s) w.p challenging the notification 1 C.P. Balaramudu 11492/2016 39371/2015 2 Somala Naik 10794/2016 37974/2015 3 M. Kumari 10850/2016 37809/2015 4 Kasa Vani Sreedevi 10687/2016 37975/2015 5 J. Venkata Rami Reddy 10731/2016 37900/2015 6 K. Srinivasulu 11621/2016 39376/2015 7 Shaik Mahaboob Saheb 11609/2016 37913/2015 8 J. Subramanyam 11586/2016 37800/2015 9 P. Lakshmi Devi 11496/2016 39389/2015 10 N.C. Sreenivasulu 11476/2016 - 11 S. Ramakrishnaiah 11021/2016 - 12 Avula Naga Krishnudu 11592/2016 - 13 V. Maddiletti 11716/2016 - 14 N. Maddi Reddy - 37944/2015 15 E. Nagaraju - 37937/2015 16 Subhashini - 40076/2015 5. The Writ Petitioners 1 to 9 who filed writ petitions mentioned in Column No.(B) challenging the endorsements, also filed writ petitions in Column No.(C) challenging the notification. 6. The Writ Petitioners 10 to 13 only filed the writ petitions mentioned in Column No.(B) challenging the endorsements. 7. The Writ Petitioners 14 to 16 only filed the writ petitions mentioned in Column No.(B) challenging the notification. 8. 6. The Writ Petitioners 10 to 13 only filed the writ petitions mentioned in Column No.(B) challenging the endorsements. 7. The Writ Petitioners 14 to 16 only filed the writ petitions mentioned in Column No.(B) challenging the notification. 8. The Petitioners claim is that they have been appointed as Fair Price Shop dealers on permanent basis long back and since then, they have been discharging their duties as Fair Price Shop Dealer without any complaints from any one. Thereafter, the petitioners in W.P.Nos, 10731, 10687, 11716, 11621, 11592, 11586, 11496, 11492, 10850, 11476, 11021, 10794 and 11609 of 2016 applied for renewal of their dealerships and the same were rejected by endorsement of the Revenue Divisional Officer. Thereafter, the Respondent No.3/Sub Collector, Nandyal, Kurnool District, issued Notification in Rc.No.A/2636/2015, dated 13.11.2015, for appointment of Fair Price Shop Dealers on permanent basis in the vacant shops in Nandyal Division, Kurnool District, which were already allotted to the petitioners. Challenging the said Endorsements dated 24.04.2015 and 29.04.2015 and the Notification dated 13.11.2015, the present Writ Petitions are filed. 9. Learned counsel for the Petitioners contends that appointment of dealers can only be initiated for vacant shops/new shops, but not for Fair Price Shops which are functioning since long time on permanent basis. It is further contended that the petitioners are discharging their duties as Fair Price Shop Dealers continuously for more than 10 years, which indicates that the shops are not vacant, as such, issuance of impugned Notification is politically motivated. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that as per the statement of the particulars of Fair Price Shop dealers in Kurnool District furnished by the Tahsildar, Banaganepalle, Kunool District, Dated 23.12.2010, the petitioners were shown to be appointed as permanent dealers. As such, their dealership cannot be re-notified by the impugned Notification and requested to set aside the same and direct the respondents to permit the petitioners to run their respective Fair Price Shops. 10. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Nandyal, Kurnool District, filed Counter Affidavit contending that the Joint Collector issued instructions Dated 06.04.2015 directing all the Revenue Divisional Officers, in Kurnool District to fill up the vacancies of Fair Price Shops by issuing Notification as per Rules. Accordingly, he issued Notification Dated 13.11.2015 for filing up 72 Fair Price Shop Dealers in Nandyal Division. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Nandyal, Kurnool District, filed Counter Affidavit contending that the Joint Collector issued instructions Dated 06.04.2015 directing all the Revenue Divisional Officers, in Kurnool District to fill up the vacancies of Fair Price Shops by issuing Notification as per Rules. Accordingly, he issued Notification Dated 13.11.2015 for filing up 72 Fair Price Shop Dealers in Nandyal Division. It is contended that as per G.O.Ms.No.4, dated 19.02.2011, when a Fair Price Shop falls vacant, such Fair Price Shop shall be attached to the neighbouring FP Shops or entrusted to any person purely on temporary basis in order to ensure that there is no hardship to the card holders in drawing the essential commodities. Para 12 (viii) of G.O.Ms.No.4, dated 19.02.2011 specified that the person, who are appointed on temporary basis, shall not be conferred any right at the time of filling up of vacancies on regular basis. As such, the notification issued by this respondent is legal and correct. 11. It is further averred that the petitioners are running the Fair Price Shops purely on temporary basis and they have not produced any records to show that they are running the Fair Price Shops as permanent dealers. It is also averred that prior to notification, dated 13.11.2015, the Tahsildar, Banaganapalle, has issued Notices to the petitioners to establish their permanent dealership. Thereafter, the Petitioners applied for renewal of their dealership. However, after due enquiry, renewal of their Fair Price Shops of the Petitioner was rejected on the ground that Permanent Orders were not attached while submitting the applications. Finally, it is contended that the petitioners were authorized to run the Fair Price Shop on temporary basis without any appointment on regular basis and as such, authorization cannot be taken as an appointment of Fair Price Shop Dealer on permanent basis. Therefore, the petitioners have no right to question the Notification dated 13.11.2015 and requested to dismiss the Writ Petitions. 12. Having heard the submissions of the respective counsel and upon careful perusal of the material available on record, it appears, the contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners is that, the petitioners were appointed as Fair Price Shop Dealers of respective shops long back on permanent basis and they were issued authorizations and licenses under the relevant Control Orders and they are discharging their duties without any complaints for all these years. Their authorizations are renewed periodically by the competent authority. In the year 2015 also, the petitioners made applications through the concerned Tahsildar by paying necessary fees for renewal of their authorizations. Without renewing their authorizations, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Nandyal, Kurnool District, issued Endorsements dated 24.04.2015 and 29.04.2015 rejecting their renewal applications on the ground that the petitioners failed to submit their original authorizations. Challenging the action of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Nandyal, Kurnool District in rejecting the renewal applications, some of the writ petitions are filed herein. 13. It appears, subsequent to rejection of the renewal applications and authorizations of the petitioners, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Nandyal, Kurnool District, issued Notification dated 13.11.2015 treating the fair price shops wherein the petitioners are working as vacant, calling for the applications for appointment as fair price shop dealers. Challenging the action of the third respondent in issuing notification calling for applications for appointment of fair price shops wherein the petitioners are working, some of the writ petitions are filed. 14. The main crux of the issue in all these writ petitions is, whether the petitioners are appointed as Fair Price Shop Dealers to respective shops on permanent basis or on temporary basis? 15. The petitioners could satisfy this Court by filing the document as Ex.P-2, which is the statement showing the particulars of fair price shop dealers in Banaganapalle Mandal, Kurnool District as on 23.12.2010. For proper adjudication of the issue, this Court on 28.06.2022 directed the third respondent to place original records pertaining to the appointment of the petitioners as fair price shop dealers either on permanent basis or temporary basis. On 12.07.2022, when the cases are listed, the third respondent could not produce the same. The learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies submits that, now Banaganapalle Mandal is included in the Revenue Division of Dhone, Nandyal District and as such, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Dhone, Kurnool District requested the Revenue Divisional Officer, Nandyal, Kurnool District, to send the connected records to their office to enable them to place before this Court and sought time to get the original records. Accordingly, these writ petitions are adjourned to 28.07.2022. These matters are adjourned several times at the request of the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies for production of original records. Accordingly, these writ petitions are adjourned to 28.07.2022. These matters are adjourned several times at the request of the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies for production of original records. Finally on 27.09.2022, when these cases are taken up for final hearing, learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies submitted that the original records pertaining to the appointment of the petitioners are not traced and due to that reason, they could not produce the same before this Court. Under these circumstances, this Court is left with no option, except to accept the document filed by the petitioners as Ex.P-2. In the statement of particulars of fair price shop dealers in Banaganapalle Mandal as on 23.12.2012 prepared by the Tahsildar of Banaganapalle Mandal, Kurnool District, it is clearly mentioned that the petitioners are appointed on permanent basis. In the absence of any record, on behalf of the respondents, considering the material placed before this Court by the petitioners, particularly, Ex.P-2, this Court holds that the petitioners were appointed as fair price shop dealers on permanent basis for the respective fair price shops. 16. It appears, the petitioners obtained valid authorizations from the competent authority and they were renewed from time to time and finally they have submitted applications for renewal in the month of March, 2015. Admittedly, the said applications are rejected on the ground that the petitioners failed to submit original authorizations. It is the contention of the petitioners that, they submitted applications along with the original authorizations and required fee to the concerned Tahsildar and the Tahsildar has to forward the same to the competent authority who is vested with the power to renew authorization under the relevant Control Order. 17. On perusal of the letter dated 08.04.2015 of the Tahsildar, Banaganapalle addressed to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Nandyal, Kurnool District, which was filed as Ex.P-8 along with the material papers in the writ petition, this Court is satisfied that authorizations of all the petitioners are in force. The Tahsildar forwarded the renewal applications to the Revenue Divisional Officer along with connected papers, as such, there is force in the contention of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners that the petitioners had submitted their applications for renewal of authorizations by following the procedure provided under the relevant Control Order in the light of the letter dated 08.04.2015 of the Tahsildar, Banaganapalle. In view of the same, it is to be held that, the action of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Nandyal, Kurnool District in rejecting the applications submitted by the petitioners for renewal of their authorizations is illegal, arbitrary, unjust and violation of principles of natural justice. 18. Accordingly, the writ petitions filed against the Endorsements dated 24.04.2015 and 29.04.2015 of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Nandyal, Kurnool District, rejecting the renewal applications of the petitioners are to be allowed, by setting-aside the said Endorsements. 19. For the reasons stated above, basing on the material available on record, as it is held that the petitioners were appointed as fair price shop dealers on permanent basis and they have submitted applications for renewal of authorizations within the time by following the procedure, in the considered opinion of this Court, the action of the respondents in issuing Notification dated 13.11.2015 calling for applications for filling up the vacancies of fair price shop dealers where the petitioners are working is not tenable. The petitioners are able to prove before this Court by filing relevant material that they were appointed as fair price shop dealers of respective shops on permanent basis and their authorizations are in force. As such, treating the fair price shops as vacant by the respondents wherein the petitioners are appointed on permanent basis and issuing Notification in Rc.No.A/2636/2015 dated 13.11.2015 is to be declared as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and against the provisions of The Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2001, The Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008 and The Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2015. 20. For the above mentioned reasons: i. W.P.Nos.11492, 10794, 10850, 11476, 11021, 10687, 10731, 11621, 11609, 11592, 11586, 11496, 11716 of 2016 are allowed and the Endorsements dated 24.04.2015 and 29.04.2015 issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Nandyal, are hereby setaside; ii. W.P. Nos. 37809, 37974, 37944, 37937, 37913, 37900, 39376, 39389, 37800, 40076, 37975, 39371 OF 2015 are allowed and the Notification in Rc.No.A/2636/2015 dated 13.11.2015 issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Nandyal is hereby setaside with respect to the petitioners fair price shops; iii. The respondents are directed to permit the petitioners to continue them as dealers of respective fair price shops as usual. 21. Consequently, miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. 22. There shall be no order as to costs.