IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No: 1675 of 2007 Between: Nallakurthi Vijaya W/o Koteswar Rao R/o Angalakuduru Village, Tenali mandal, Guntur District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Chief Rationing Officer, 65, SP. Road, besides Hotel Yatrik Nivas, Secunderabad-3 2 The Commissioner of Civil Supplies, Civil Supplies Bhavan, Somajiguda, Hyderabad. 3 The District Collector, Guntur. 4 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tenali, Guntur District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: None Counsel for the Respondents: AGP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No: 1675 of 2007 ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not restoring the petitioner’s authorization to run the fair price shop at Angalakuduru Village, Guntur District and renewing the same as contrary to directions dated 10.11.2006, as illegal and void. At the hearing, there is no representation for the petitioner. Hence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed in default. Even otherwise, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed on merits. Heard the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. A perusal of the averments contained in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition shows that the petitioner was granted authorization to run the abovementioned fair price shop on 18.03.2002, which was valid for two years, that the authorization was renewed from time to time and that when she intended to contest the elections for the office of Sarpanch of Angalakuduru Gram Panchayat, the returning officer insisted that she should resign to her fair price shop dealership and fearing that her nomination will not be accepted, she resigned the dealership. The petitioner further stated that she got elected and is continuing as Sarpanch and that when she came to know about the clarification issued by the State Election Commission (for short, ‘the Commission’) that the fair price shop dealers are entitled to contest the elections, she sought for the abovementioned direction. No counter affidavit is filed. A perusal of the instructions issued by the State Election Commission on 10.11.2006 shows that certain fair price shop dealers filed WP.No.14189 of 2006 and batch questioning the instructions issued by the Commission on 14.06.2006 to the effect that the nominations filed by them are not accepted, that this Court by interim directions permitted the petitioners therein to contest the elections based on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Somnath Rath v. Bikram K Arukh[1] and that in view of the interim orders of this Court and the judgment of the Supreme Court, the Commission decided to allow the fair price shop dealers to contest for all the elective offices in the Panchayat Raj institution and that a final view will be taken by the Commission after disposal of WP.No.14189 of 2006 and batch. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies placed before me G.O.Ms.No.53 dated 06.10.2003 issued by the Government of A.P., Consumer Affairs Food and Civil Supplies (CSI) Department. The annexure of the said G.O. contains guidelines for selection and appointment of fair price shop dealers. Clause 12 (i) and (ii) read as under: “(i) All individuals holding any Public Office like Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, President of Mandal Praja Parishad, Chairman of Zilla Praja Parishad, Presidents of Co-operative Societies, Councilors or Chairman of Municipality, Members of Zilla Parishad Territorial Constituency (ZPTC) etc., “irrespective of the reservation shall not be eligible”; (ii) Every F.P. Shop dealer should give an undertaking to the appoint authority concerned that he/she will relinquish the dealership if he/she is elected to any public office” The above-reproduced guidelines clearly placed embargo on the individuals holding public offices like Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat on being appointed as fair price shop dealers. The circular dated 10.11.2006 relied upon by the petitioner was confined and limited to acceptance of nominations for the post of Sarpanch filed by the fair price shop dealers. The said circular clearly indicates that a decision to accept their nominations was taken pending taking of final view after the disposal of the batch of cases pending before this Court. In my considered view, the prayer of the petitioner is in the teeth of G.O.Ms.No.53 dated 06.10.2003. Though the annexure to the said G.O. contains the guidelines, which may not have the force of law, in my considered view, they are intended to achieve an avowed object, namely, that those persons, who have the positions of power, should not be permitted to act as fair price shop dealers in order to prevent them from misusing the dealership licence by wielding their political power. This Court while exercising its discretionary jurisdiction will not interdict the State to enforce a measure taken in public interest and to prevent abuse of power by the persons holding influential offices while acting as fair price shop dealers, lest the whole public distribution system will be seriously jeopardized gravely affecting the interest of public at large. At any rate, the circular issued by the Commission merely permitted filing of nominations by the fair price shop dealers and no final pronouncement of the competent authority on the eligibility of the persons holding public offices to continue as fair price shop dealers has been made. Therefore, the said circular is of no avail to the petitioner. For the abovementioned reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.2119 of 2007 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is also dismissed. C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 05.03.2008 ES [1] AIR 1999 SC 3417