HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA WRIT PETITION NO.15605 of 2006 Date: January 22, 2008 Between: Ananthula Shankara Linga. … Petitioner And 1. The Joint Collector-cum- Collector of Civil Supplies, Karimnagar District and 2 others. …. Respondents * * * ORDER: Heard the counsel. 2. The writ petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus directing respondents to issue quota of commodities for Block Nos.18-3 and 18-4 as per the order bearing File No.D/2727/2005, dated 12.12.2005, as per the allotment to the petitioner by duly declaring action of the respondents in reducing the quota at the instance of some third party though there are no complaints, whatsoever, against the petitioner with regard to distribution of commodities to the card holders, as illegal, arbitrary and violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and pass such other suitable orders. 3. It is stated that the petitioner was allotted fair price shop bearing No.4536 to supply kerosene for the houses covered under Block No.18-4 at Addaguttapally area of Godavarikhani of Karimnagar District in the year 1990 and one Kishan Reddy was allotted fair price shop bearing No.4541 for supply of all commodities for the houses covered under Block Nos.19-6 and 21-1. Another person by name Ravinder Reddy was also allotted fair price shop bearing No.4536 for supply of all commodities except kerosene for the houses covered under the Blocks 18-3 and 18-4 in the town. Since the said Ravinder Reddy left Godavarikhani, the shop bearing No.4536 was wound up and in the month of December 2005 respondent No.3 allotted houses covered under Blocks 18-4 about 470 to the petitioner for supply of all commodities i.e., rice, wheat, sugar, kerosene and other essential commodities. In the month of January 2006 respondent No.3 issued another list of particulars of houses to the petitioner for supply of commodities, wherein the houses given to him were confined to the area covered under Block 18-4 only, by deleting the houses covered under Block No.18-3 as per their earlier order dated 12.12.2005. There was no specific letter issued by the respondent to the extent of the said change. However, the petitioner had been supplying the commodities to the houses covered under Block No.18-4 as per the directions of the respondents and he came to know that the area covered under Block No.18-3 was given to the said Kishan Reddy. Further it is stated that since January 2006 the petitioner had been supplying all the commodities to nearly 470 houses under various schemes i.e., Public Distribution Quota, Anthyodaya Quota and A.P. Free Rice Scheme without any remarks. The rice, which was being supplied through his shop, was about 68 quintals under P.D.S.; 3.85 quintals under Anthyodaya Scheme; 1.88 quintals of sugar in every month and also the quarterly quota of wheat being supplied by the petitioner apart from 1250 litres of kerosene in every month. Further it is stated that to the utter surprise of the petitioner the petitioner learnt that respondent No.3 is about to change the area allotted to him at the instance of said Kishan Reddy and accordingly the commodities to be supplied by the petitioner in the month of July had been reduced and given according to the needs of the public residing under Block No.18-3 and the area of houses under Block No.18-4 which had been allotted to the petitioner previously and to which he had been supplying commodities for the past 7 months covered under Block No.18-4 had been allotted to said Kishan Reddy and the respondents are likely to issue release orders for supply of commodities according to the proposed change as intended by them and also as per the whims and fancies of said Kishan Reddy. In such a case, the rice quota for this month will be reduced to only 32 quintals from 68 quintals, which was used to be supplied through petitioner’s shop. There was no allegation of any sort against the petitioner and no letter of any type calling any explanation from the petitioner was served to the petitioner at any point of time. According to the proposed change, the area covered under Block No.19-6 is going to be allotted to the petitioner which was previously allotted to the said Kishan Reddy and the area covered under Block No.18-4 which was previously allotted to the petitioner for the past 7 months is going to be allotted to the said Kishan Reddy without assigning any reasons to that extent. Previously, the respondents acted in the same manner and against the orders issued by them on 12.12.2005 and the area covered under Block No.18-3 were orally given to the said Kishan Reddy by deleting from the areas allotted to him as per said letter. It is also stated that in case if the order passed by the respondents on 12.12.2005 allotting the houses covered under the two Blocks bearing No.18-3 and 18-4 were continued, the monthly quota of the rice scheduled to be supplied by the petitioner under various schemes would be 90 quintals per month. Since they changed the same and allotted the houses covered under Block No.18-3 to the said Kishan Reddy in January 2006, the monthly quota of rice was reduced to 68 quintals from the said 90 quintals. If the proposed change of taking away the houses covered under Block No.18-4 and assigning to the said Kishan Reddy by allotting the area covered under Block No.18-6 to the petitioner is allowed to be taken place, the monthly quota of rice will be again reduced to 32 quintals and also the other commodities will be reduced proportionately which ultimately cause loss to him. More so, the practice and procedure for release of the commodities to the fair price shop dealers by the respondents in every month will be within 2-3 days from the date of deposit of the amount thereof by way of D.D. by the concerned shop dealers. Though, the petitioner submitted D.D. for release of the commodities for the month of July 2006 on 10.7.2006 vide No.825791 drawn on State Bank of Hyderabad itself, the respondents, so far, have not released the stock which itself is a clear proof that information received by him regarding the proposed change of the areas allotted to him to said Kishan Reddy in turn re-allotting the area covered under Block No.18-6 to him is illegal, ultra vires and against the principles of natural justice. In such circumstances, the writ petitioner approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. 4. In the counter-affidavit filed it is stated that merger proposals were submitted to the Collector (CS), Karimnagar (R1) for merging FPS No.4536 and 4541 vide Lr.No.D/2464/2000, dated 02.8.2001, Revenue Divisional Officer, Peddapally due to non- viability for running of fair price shop. But due to issue of new ration cards during August to December 2005 the number of cards were increased in each block and all the F.P. shops had become viable to run the shop independently. The Government had also issued instructions for conversion of nominal retail kerosene oil dealers as fair price shop dealer in a phased manner through circular instructions No.PDS-II (3)/2847/05, dated 19.3.2005, and CCS Ref. No.N5/2847/05, dated 31.05.2005. As per the circulars issued by the Commissioner dated 19.3.2005 the petitioner was converted as FPSD dealer for 4536 shop and authorization was issued through Revenue Divisional Officer, Peddapally RC.No.D/2727/05, dated 12.12.2005, and the Essential Commodities were allotted for the month of December 2005 onwards, and the list of consumers to whom the essential commodities had also given to the FPS dealers as the issue of new ration cards were under progress. It is also stated that after issue of new ration cards, by attaching the area to each dealer, the essential commodities would be allotted to each dealer and given the list of consumers to whom the essential commodities has to be distributed. As such 68.00 quintals of rice under PDS, 3.85 quintals of rice under AAY and 1.88 quintals of sugar was allotted to the petitioner for the month of January 2006. Further it is stated that no quota had been reduced to the petitioner from January 2006 to July 2006. The essential commodities allotted for the months of January 2006 and July 2006 are detailed as below: For the month of January 2006 Sl. No. FPS dealer Name & No Area attached Number of cards attached Essential commodities allotted Rice K. Oil Sugar 1 A. Shankar Lingam, 4536 18-4 418 60.00 1400 2 V. Kishan Reddy, 4541 18-3 & 19-6 507 71.20 1140 For the month of August 2006 Sl. No. FPS dealer Name & No. Area attached Number of cards attached Essential commodities allotted Rice K. Oil Sugar 1 A. Shankar Lingam, 4536 18-4 418 64.00 1190 1.88 2 V. Kishan Reddy, 4541 18-3 & 19-6 507 76.75 1415 2.25 Further Sri V. Kishan Reddy, FPS dealer No.4541 represented to the Collector (CS), Karimnagar on 05.7.2006 stating that he was distributing the essential commodities to the consumers for the Blocks 19-6, 18-4 and 21-1 and requested to allot 18-3 and 18-4 Block to his shop 4541. In this regard, local enquiry had been conducted on the representation of Sri V. Kishan Reddy and submitted a report to the Collector (CS), Karimnagar, but no essential commodities quota was changed either to A. Shankar Lingam or to Sri V. Kishan Reddy. The ROs had been issued to the petitioner along with the other dealers on 19.7.2006 and the essential commodities i.e., 64.00 quintals of rice under PDS, 3.85 quintals of rice under AAY, and 1.85 quintals of Sugar were supplied. 5. In the light of the respective stands taken by the parties specific stand had been taken in the counter-affidavit that local enquiry had been conducted on the representation of V. Kishan Reddy and submitted a report to the Collector (CS), Karimnagar, but no essential commodities quota was changed either to A. Shankar Lingam, the petitioner or to V. Kishan Reddy. 6. In the light of the specific stand taken by the respondents in the counter-affidavit, this court is of the considered opinion that inasmuch as there is no change of quota of essential commodities, no further orders need be passed in the present writ petition. However, it is made clear that in the event of any change of quota, the petitioner is given liberty to make appropriate representation to the District Collector of the District and let the District Collector consider such representation in case of need. 7. With the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ____________________ (P.S. NARAYANA, J) Date: January 22, 2008. BSB