Telangana High Court
WA/1433/2011 of Guntur Venkateswarlu Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh on 29 December 2011
JUSTICE SHRI MADAN B.LOKUR AND HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO.1433 OF 2011 Dt: 29-12-2011. Between: GUNTUR VENKATESWARLU .. APPELLANT AND GOVT. OF ANDHRA PRADESH REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, CONSUMER AFFAIRS AND FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES (CS.I) DEPT., SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS,
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI MADAN B.LOKURANDHONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR
WRIT APPEAL NO.1433 OF 2011
Dt: 29-12-2011.
Between:
GUNTUR VENKATESWARLU .. APPELLANT
AND
GOVT. OF ANDHRA PRADESHREP. BY ITS SECRETARY,CONSUMER AFFAIRS AND FOODAND CIVIL SUPPLIES (CS.I) DEPT.,SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS,HYDERABAD
AND OTHERS .. RESPONDENTS
HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI MADAN B.LOKURANDHONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR
WRIT APPEAL NO.1433 OF 2011
JUDGMENT: (PER HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI Madan B.Lokur)
The appellant is aggrieved by an order dated 8.11.2011 passed bythe learned single Judge in W.P.No.26505 of 2008.
2. The grievance of the appellant before the learned single Judge wasthat the Fair Price Shop at Bapatla was sought to be bifurcated by therespondents contrary to the provisions of G.O.Ms.No.35, dated17.09.2007.
3. The appellant had a Fair Price Shop which had in all 846 White,AAY, AP and Pink cards. This shop was sought to be bifurcated andafter bifurcation the petitioner would be left with 423 cards consisting308 White, 31 AAY, 0-AP and 84 Pink cards.
4. According to the appellant, G.O.Ms.No.35, dated 17.09.2007postulates that a Fair Price Shop should have between 500 to 550 BPLcards in an urban area. He says that as a result of the bifurcation, theFair Price Shop of the appellant would fall below the minimumstandards laid down in G.O.Ms.No.35, dated 17.09.2007.
5. The learned single Judge was not impressed with the contentionurged by the appellant since it was felt that public interest outweighedthe individual interest of the appellant with regard to setting up of a FairPrice Shop in Bapatla town.
6. Feeling aggrieved the appellant is before us now and has raisedthe same contention as was urged before the learned single Judge.
7. We find from a reading of the counter affidavit filed by the Sub- Collector, Tenali, Guntur District that a proposal was submitted by theTahsildar, Bapatla for bifurcation of Fair Price Shops not only the oneowned by the appellant but also by others. The matter was placed forconsideration before the Mandal Food Advisory Committee in itsmeeting held on 2.1.2008, which accepted the proposal of the Tahsildar,Bapatla.
8. Thereafter, the matter was considered by the Revenue DivisionalOfficer, Tenali who verified the facts and found that the request of the card holders demanding bifurcation was genuine. Hethen placed the matter before the Collector, Guntur who also consideredthe matter and issued appropriate orders on 21.10.2008 bifurcating 14Fair Price Shops in Bapatla town. The Collector has mentioned in theorder that this has been done in view of the report given by the Tahsildarand in view of the difficulties faced by the card holders in lifting andgetting essential commodities.
9. We find that as many as four authorities i.e. the Tahsildar, theMandal Food Advisory Committee, the Revenue Divisional Officer aswell as the Collector have come to the same conclusion viz., that itwould be appropriate if the Fair Price Shop of the appellant, amongstothers, is split up. That being the position, we do not think it appropriate,in exercise of writ jurisdiction, to interfere with the decision taken by theauthorities who are at the grass root level and are fully aware of thecase.
10. We do not find the view taken by the authorities to be perverse orirrational in any manner. It is true that the appellant may fall short of theminimum requirement of 500 BPL card holders but as held by thelearned single Judge, the individual interest of the appellant cannotoutweigh the interest of the card holders who are facing difficulties inlifting and getting essential commodities. Public interest demands that itshould be given precedence over the private interest of a citizen.
11. We do not find any error with the view taken by the learned singleJudge.
12. We find no merit in this writ appeal and it is accordingly dismissed.Miscellaneous application is also dismissed.
Dt: 29-12-2011.
( MADAN B.LOKUR, CJ )
( SANJAY KUMAR, J )
TNB