IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No: 7428 of 2005 BETWEEN: Smt. K. Shiva Kumari W/o G. Rayappa, Yerrabalem Village, Krosoru Mandal, Guntur District. ... PETITIONER AND 1 The Collector, Guntur District. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Guntur, Guntur District. ...RESPONDENTS 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 issue a Writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction, declaring the proceedings issued by the 1st respondent vide D. Dis 166/05/S1, dated 5-3-2005 as illegal, unjust arbitrary and against to the instructions of the Government issued vide Govt. Memo No. 148/CS.I/98-1, dated 22-1-1999 and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently set a side the same and pass such other order or orders as may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.B.DEVANAND Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: ORDER: Petitioner submits that he was appointed as a fair price shop dealer of Yerrabalem Village, Krosuru Mandal, Guntur District in the year 1999 and renewed from time to time and valid up to March 31, 2006. While so, the Mandal Revenue Officer, Krosuru Mandal submitted proposals for bifurcation of the existing shop of Yerrabalem Village having 480 cards and for creation of new shop near Thirupatamma Temple situated in the milder of the village with equal number of white cards, pink cards, AAY cards. The Revenue Divisional Officer vide his proceedings dated 26.11.2004 recommended the proposals of the MRO and based on the said proposals and recommendations, the District Collector, passed bifurcation order vide impugned order dated 05.03.2005. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, belonging to SC caste, was appointed as fair price shop dealer and the said fair price shop is located in SC colony. He further submits that merely because the shop is located in SC colony and the dealer is SC, the same cannot constitute a ground to create a new shop by bifurcation of the existing shop. 3. Perusal of the impugned order goes to show that OC and BC cardholders have filed a representation expressing their difficulty in getting the essential commodities from a distant place where the existing shop of the petitioner is located, thereby requested to create a new shop in the middle of the village. Merely because OCs and BCs have made a representation stating that the shop existing at SC colony is located at a distant place, it cannot be said that there was any kind of expression that they found it difficult simply because the shop was located in the SC colony and the dealer belonged to SC caste, their expression only meant that the shop was located at a distant place and for the convenience sake only they have filed the said representation. Merely because SCs, OCs and BCs have been mentioned in the order, it cannot be said that there was any disrespect either towards the petitioner or towards the persons situated in the SC colony. 4. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the OCs, BCs and the authorities wanted to separate SCs from the other caste people and that there was an attempt to observe untouchability or any such practice. All the contentions of the petitioner are imaginary and illusory. Insofar as bifurcation is concerned the existing dealer has no existing right or vested right, as the bifurcation is only for the convenience of the cardholders. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ V. ESWARAIAH, J April 29, 2008 DSK