IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.25640 of 2006 Between: The Nellore District Kerosene Retail Dealers Welfare Association rep by Secretary, Sri V. Subba Rao S/o Lingaiah R/o Nellore, Nellore District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, Nellore. 2 The Joint Collector, Nellore 3 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Nellore, Nellore District. 4 The Mandal Revenue Officer, nellore, Nellore District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.V.SUDHAKAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following : ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to direct the respondents not to deviate from the existing Distribution System of Kerosene between the Kerosene Conventional Dealers and Fair Price Shop Dealers of Nellore Municipal Corporation at the ratio of 65:35 respectively and to allot 65% quota out of total Kerosene, meant for Public Distriblution System, to the Conventional dealers only, even in the cases of suspension/cancellation of the licenses and death of the Conventional Dealers, in accordance with Order, dated 21-05-1998, of respondent No.1. The petitioner is a registered Association of Nellore District Kerosene Retail Dealers. Its members are given licenses for distribution of Kerosene. In addition to the members of the petitioner-Association, the Kerosene is permitted to be distributed by the Fair Price Shop dealers also. In connection with the dispute regarding the ratio of supply of Kerosene for distribution among the consumers, the petitioner-Association filed W.P.No.25756 of 1995. A Division Bench of this Court disposed of the said Writ Petition vide Order, dated 20-04-1998, with the following direction: “In the circumstances, the Collector, Nellore- the 2nd respondent herein – is directed to take decision in accordance with the directives of the Commissioner of Civil Supplies, dated 10-07- 1992, in reference No.E2/337/92 and also the report of the Joint Collector, dated 01-02-1992 in ROC.1874/90 within a period of three months from the date of the receipt of a copy of this order. Pending that, the existing arrangement as obtaining on this day shall continue.” In compliance with the abovementioned direction, deliberations were held under the auspices of respondent No.1. The representatives of the petitioner-Association and Fair Price Shop Dealers Association of Nellore District arrived at an understanding among themselves and the same was reduced to writing to the effect that the total quantity of Kerosene oil meant for distribution through Public Distribution System be got distributed by the Fair Price Shop Dealers and the Kerosene Conventional Dealers in the ratio of 35:65 respectively. Following the said agreement, respondent No.1 issued proceedings vide RC.C.1874/90, dated 21-05-1998, wherein he issued the following directions: “1) The entire quantity of Kerosene meant for distribution through Public Distribution System in Nellore Municipality be allotted between the Kerosene Conventional dealers, Nellore Town and the F.P.Shops in the ratio of 65:35 respectively and be distributed to the cardholders. 2) Keeping in view of the convenience of the cardholders, the Conventional Kerosene Dealers in Nellore Town shall locate their K.Oil Distribution point within the radius of 200 yards to the area to which they are tagged on and distribute kerosene to the cardholders attached to them. 3) The Kerosene Conventional Dealers, Nellore town, shall, as in the case of F.P.Shop dealers, keep open their kerosene distribution outlets from 8.00 AM., to 12.00 Noon in the morning and 4.00 pm., to 8.00 pm., in the evening every day, till the distribution of kerosene is completed. They shall invariably exhibit a board, conspicuously at distribution point, indicating the timings and stock position.” The grievance of the petitioner-Association in this Writ Petition is that despite the abovementioned agreement and the peremptory order passed by respondent No.1, the ratio referred to above is not being maintained in the distribution of Kerosene. The petitioner further stated that whenever vacancies are arising on account of death/suspension/cancellation of licenses or resignation by the Conventional Dealers, their quotas are being allotted to the Fair Price Shop Dealers. In the counter-affidavit, filed by respondent No.2-Joint Collector, Nellore District, the facts pleaded by the petitioner and referred to above to the extent of the events leading to the abovementioned agreement between the petitioner- Association and Fair Price Shop Dealers of Nellore Municipal Corporation and passing of the consequential order by respondent No.1, for distribution of Kerosene in the ratio of 65:35, are admitted. In pages 6 and 7 of the counter, it is stated as under: “It is submitted that the main aim of the Government is to bring the PDS system under one roof for the benefit of card holders. However, as per earlier direction taken in the District, 65% of Kerosene is being allotted to conventional dealers. This does not confer any absolute rights over the hawkers to demand more allotment of Kerosene. It is submitted that as per the directions of the Government and allotment of Kerosene is by the Government of India there would be always changes in the supply and allotment of Kerosene Oil to the Fair Price Shops dealers as well as Conventional dealers. It is further submitted that hence no one can claim absolute rights for demanding the granting of allotment. However, as on today, the ratio of 65% : 35% is being maintained in Nellore Municipal Corporation. Further, it is submitted W.P.No.25788/06 and W.P.No.22406/06 were filed by Fair Price Shop dealers and Nellore Nagara Fair Price Shop Association questioning the allotment of 65% K.Oil to the Conventional dealers. The same are pending.” In the affidavit, filed in support of the implead petition, the impleaded respondents disputed the locus of Sri V.Subbarao, Secretary of the petitioner-Association, to file this Writ Petition. They also disputed the right of the petitioner-Association to claim the relief in the Writ Petition. In my considered view, the objection regarding the locus of Sri V.Subbarao is without any merit because as early as 1998, Sri V.Subbarao, represented the petitioner-Association in W.P.No.25752 of 1995. Even Order, dated 21-05-1998, passed by respondent No.1, shows that it is Sri V.Subba Rao, who actually participated in the deliberations leading to the agreement between the petitioner-Association and the Fair Price Shop Dealers Association. Therefore, it is too late in the day for the impleaded respondents to question the locus of Sri V.Subbarao. As regards the right of the members of the petitioner- Association to claim 65% of quota, the official respondents have categorically conceded such a right. However, they have denied the petitioner’s allegation that the ratio of 65:35 has not been maintained. In the above-reproduced paragraph of the counter-affidavit, respondent No.2 has taken a clear stand that the said ratio is being maintained in Nellore Municipal Corporation. In view of the same, it is not necessary for this Court to go into the question whether the quotas of the Conventional Dealers, on account of arising of vacancies, should be allotted to the other Conventional Dealers or Fair Price Shop Dealers. So long as the official respondents maintain the ratio of 65:35 with respect to the entire Kerosene to be distributed in Nellore town, the said issue pales into insignificance. Having regard to the categorical stand taken by the official respondents that they are maintaining 65% ratio in favour of the petitioner-Association, the Writ Petition is disposed of with the direction to the official respondents to continue to maintain that ratio in future. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, interim order dated 03-01-2007 is vacated, W.P.M.P.No.32868 of 2006 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is dismissed and W.V.M.P.No.588 of 2008 filed by the official respondents is disposed of as infructuous. ___________________________ (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) 3rd July, 2009 lur