IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 8479 of 2008 Between: 1 Sk.Jaan Saheb S/o.Mastan gujjannagundla Guntur Town & District 2 Shaik Allabee W/o.Late John L.No.1/90 Vengalraonagar Guntur 3 Shankarasetti Ranga Rao S/o.Vallaiah 8/95 Srinagar Guntur 4 Nunna Laxminarayana S/o.Jalaiah 3/97 Srinagar Guntur 5 Sampangi Veeraswamy S/o.Gangaiah L.No.196/81 Nehru Nagar Guntur 6 Tanneru Shankar Rao S/o.Laxmaiah L.No.225/81 Navabarath Colony Guntur 7 Dulala Basavaiah S/o.Venkaiah L.No.194/81 Nehru Nagar Guntur 8 Vallarapu Venkateswarlu S/o.Subbaiah L.No.89/81 Budampadu Guntur 9 Medisetti Nageswar Rao S/o.Kotaiah L.No.78/81 Budampadu Guntur 10 Koneti Chinna Ramaiah S/o.Yelamanda L.No.93/81 Sangadigunta Guntur 11 Bellamkonda Narasimha Rao S/o.Bikshalu L.No.2/90 Srinagar Guntur 12 Indla Singaiah S/o.Laxmaiah L.No.19/93 Srinagar Guntur 13 Devatha Srinivasa Rao S/o.Subrahmanyam L.No.19/81 R.Agraharam Guntur 14 Noor Basha S/o.Noor Basha Moulali L.No.202/81 Sringar Guntur 15 Inturu Shankar RAo S/o.Krishna Murthy L.No.18/90 Lalpuram Road Guntur 16 Bellamkonda Venkateswara RAo S/o.China Venkaiah L.No.4/90 Srinagar Guntur ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 Government of AP., rep.by its Principal Secretary Civil Supplies Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad 2 The Collector (Civil Supplies ),Guntur Guntur District 3 The Revenue Divisonal officer, Guntur Guntur District .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent herein in reducing the kerosene quota to the petitioners herein for the Month of April 2008 without any notice or intimation as illegal, arbitrary, without any authority and consequently direct the respondent No.3 herein to supply the kerosene quota as usual without any reduction and to grant such other relief or reliefs as this Hon`ble court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.PALLENAGESWAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM W.P.No. 8479 of 2008 Oral Order: The petitioners (16) in number are aggrieved that the 3rd respondent has reduced the kerosene quota supplied to the petitioners from April, 2008. The petitioners are all Kerosene Hawkers granted license under the A.P. Petroleum Products (Licensing and Regulation of Supplies) Order, 1980 (for short ‘the Order, 1980’). The licenses initially granted are being renewed from time to time and are currently in force. According to the petitioners, they were supplied kerosene at a particular quota till March, 2008 and thereafter the kerosene quota to each of them has been reduced. They submitted a representation through their association to the 3rd respondent on 12-04-2008 to restore the quota. There being no response or action on the representation, the petitioners are before this Court. The 3rd respondent has initially filed a counter affidavit dated 07-07- 2008 and this counter not being adequately responsive, the 3rd respondent had filed an additional counter affidavit on 31-07-2008. To the extent relevant and material, the counter affidavit of the 3rd respondent dated 31-07-2008 asserts that currently there are 192 kerosene hawkers in Guntur city of which 176 are distributing kerosene to the regular cardholders. The other (16) were distributing kerosene to the petty vendors in the Guntur city at PDS price up to March, 2008. The Government of India issued guidelines reducing the kerosene quota. Consequent on the shorter allocation of kerosene from the Government of India, the Commissioner of Civil Supplies had ordered stoppage of allotment of kerosene to petty vendors from July, 2006 and therefore to the hawkers who were distributing kerosene exclusively to petty vendors. The petty vendors filed W.P.No. 16066 of 2006 and batch challenging the order dated 23-11-2006 of the Commissioner of Civil Supplies, Hyderabad, seeking a direction to the Joint Collector and District Supply Officer to allot them 30 liters of kerosene oil for the purpose of distribution to the petty vendors. The writ petition was allowed by a learned single Judge by the judgment dated 23-11-2006 directing the respondents (officials) to supply kerosene to the petty vendors regularly. Aggrieved thereby the State preferred an appeal and by an order of the learned Division Bench dated 29-02- 2008 in W.A.No. 226 of 2008 and batch the order of the learned single Judge in the batch of writ petitions was suspended. As a consequence the obligation to supply kerosene to the petty vendors no longer operated. In view of the discontinuance of the kerosene supply to the petty vendors through the 16 hawkers, these hawkers lost their livelihood. They represented to the 3rd respondent to allot kerosene to distribute the same to cardholders in Guntur city on par with the 176 hawkers authorized to distribute kerosene to the cardholders. On a consideration of the representation of these 16 hawkers, who are party respondents in this writ petition and have been impleaded by the orders of this Court today (dated 11-08-2008) in W.P.M.P.No. 21364 of 2008, the 3rd respondent has taken an administrative decision to follow a reasonable procedure to allot kerosene from April, 2008 onwards to these 16 hawkers as well, who have the relevant licenses under the Order, 1980 with a view to enable the livelihood of these 16 hawkers. There was a proportionate reduction in their quota of kerosene supply to the 176 hawkers (the petitioners’ class) as a result. This is the broad assertion on behalf of the official respondents in the counter affidavit of the 3rd respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioners Sri Palle Nageshwar Rao would contend that as none of the cards allotted to the petitioners for supply of kerosene have been withdrawn proportionately and re- allotted to the 16 hawkers, the action of the respondents in reducing the quota of kerosene is irrational, illegal and unsustainable. The above contention is stated to be rejected. The learned counsel has not placed any provisions of the Order, 1980 which obligates the petitioners to supply the maximum quantity of an essential commodity to any cardholder irrespective of the availability of such essential commodity. The supply is to be made only in accordance with the supplies released to a Fair Price Shop Dealer in accordance with the attendant circumstances, in any month. The petitioners will not suffer any penalty whatsoever for failing to supply kerosene in accordance with the entitlement under a card to all the cardholders if adequate kerosene is not supplied. He is required under his license and under the Order, 1980 under which such license is issued, to supply the essential commodity-kerosene only to the extent kerosene is made available to him on allotment. As long as a hawker/licensee is faithfully and duly supplying the kerosene allotted to him his obligation under the license is fulfilled. The reduction of supplies from the quantity earlier made available to the petitioners is on account of the administrative need to resuscitate the livelihood of the party respondents herein who were earlier supplying kerosene to the petty vendors and which business was discontinued pursuant to a change in policy by the State. This is an administrative choice which does not transgress any law. The petitioners have no right to receive the same quota of kerosene month after month irrespective of availability and irrespective of the policy choices of the State to adjust this allocation among the various classes of licensees. The party respondents herein are also licensees and are entitled to supply of kerosene in the same measure as the petitioners are entitled. On the aforesaid analysis, there are no merits. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ____________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J Dated: 11-08-2008 pvks