WP/6569/2010 of K.Prabhakar Vs Goverment of Andhra Pradesh, on 31 December 2010

COMMON ORDER:

In these two Writ Petitions, the cause of action for filing the cases isthe notification Nos.B2/612/2010 and B2/611/2010, dated 08.03.2010issued by the third respondent. By the said notifications, the thirdrespondent, namely, the Revenue Divisional Officer, invited applications forappointment of Fair Price Shop (FPS) dealers at Ananthasagar andTogarpalli Villages. The petitioners pray for (writs of) Mandamus declaringthe action of the third respondent in contemplating to bifurcate the existingFPSs of the villages into two shops each as illegal, arbitrary, mala fide andcolorable exercise of power.

The petitioner in the first Writ Petition statedly belongs to BackwardClass Community. He was appointed as FPS dealer of AnanthasagarVillage in 1988. Authorization was renewed from time to time. It is validupto 31.03.2011. The third respondent issued notification again invitingapplications for appointment of FPS dealer for Ananthasagar Village.

The petitioner in the second Writ Petition also statedly belongs toBackard Class Community. He was appointed as FPS dealer of TogarpalliVillage in 1988 and his authorization was valid up to 31.03.2010. When theauthorization is in existence, the notification was issued by the thirdrespondent.

In both the cases, the petitioners contend that purporting to act underthe guidelines issued in G.O.Ms.No.35, dated 17.09.2007, the District Collector bifurcated the existing FPS shops into two shops. Their grievanceis that no notices were issued to them and therefore the action of thirdrespondent in issuing notifications is illegal and arbitrary. Counsel for thepetitioners, who made these submissions, relied on T.Ramanjaneyulu v State of Andhra Pradesh[[1]]and an unreported decision in Nagesh vThe Government of Andhra Pradesh Consumer Affairs, Food and CivilSupplies (CSI) Department (W.P.No.27076 of 2008, dated 17.04.2009) insupport of the contention that when the bifurcation of the existing FPSsadversely affects to exist FPS dealers, the District Collector is bound to givenotice.

There is no dispute that a person has no right to be appointed as a dealer of FPS. By such non-appointment, the right under Article 19(1)(g) ofthe Constitution of India cannot be said to be infringed. By the sameprinciple, as long as the dealership is not cancelled in accordance with therelevant Control Order, the existing FPS dealership cannot have any rightand bifurcation does not result in any civil consequences. Therefore, nonotice is required. This was so held by the Supreme Court in DistrictCollector vM.Suresh[[2]]. Further in T.Ramanjaneyulu’s case, this Courtalso observed as under.

Where the cards attached to a particular shop exceededthe minimum number of cards prescribed inG.O.Ms.No.35 dated 17.09.2007, probably it is open tothe District Collector to effect bifurcation without notice tothe existing dealer. However, when the bifurcation issought to be effected on any other ground, the existingdealer is entitled to a prior notice informing him the saidgrounds and calling upon him to show-cause as to whythe cards attached to his shop should not be reduced soas to create a new shop.

Conclusion

Therefore, the submission is misconceived. Further, the order of theDistrict Collector bifurcating the existing FPSs is not challenged before thisCourt. Against any order of bifurcation, an appeal lies to the Director of CivilSupplies and the petitioners may have to avail an alternative remedy beforeapproaching this Court with disputed questions of fact, with regard tonumber of ration cards attached to each of the shop.

The Writ Petitions are misconceived and are accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

23.03.2010KH

______________(V.V.S. RAO, J)

[1]2008 4 APLJ 52 = 2009 (1) ALD (NOC) 122008 4 APLJ 52 = 2009 (1) ALD (NOC) 12

[2]2000 (1) A.L.D. 9 (SC)2000 (1) A.L.D. 9 (SC)