IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 11109 of 2008 Between: V.Sreenivasulu, S/o. Venkateswarlu, R/o. Dampur,Vidavaluru Mandal, Nellore District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, Nellore, 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kavali,Nellore District. 3 The Tahsildar, Vidavaluru Mandal, Nellore 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 a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropraite writ declaring the impugned notification in R.C.B.No.1234/2008 dt.01.05.2008 issued by the 2nd Respondent in reserving the Fair Price Shop No.2 of Dampuru village of Vidavaluru Mandal for O.C. Physically handicapped as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the reservation policy and also the Roaster and cosnequentially to setaside thesaid notification to the extent of reserving the Fair Price Shop No.2 of Dampuru Village of Vidavaluru Mandal, Nellore Dist. For O.C. Physically handicapped and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.ANANDA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES This Court made the following, at the stage of admission: ORAL ORDER: The Writ Petition is misconceived. The petitioner’s father was an authorizee of the Fair Price Shop of Dampuru Village, Vidavaluru Mandal, Nellore District. His father died on 1.2.2008. After his death, the petitioner applied on 7.2.2008 to the 1st respondent for grant of authorization to him, consequent on his father’s demise. This representation was rightly rejected by the 1st respondent as the authorization is neither heritable nor transferable. The 2nd respondent has now issued a notification dated 1.5.2008, calling for applications for grant of authorization for the Fair Price shop of Dampuru Village, notifying the shop as reserved for O.C. (Physically Handicapped). According to the petitioner, the Fair Price shop ought to be reserved for B.C. (B) community. There is nothing in the entirety of the pleadings in the writ petition, which sets out why the Fair Price shop in the Dampuru village ought to be reserved only for BC-B candidates or why the impugned notification reserving the shop for grant of authorization to O.C. (PH), is invalid. Since the petitioner challenges the notification, by all established principles, the burden of proof is on the petitioner. The petitioner has failed to plead any material facts in support of his challenge to the impugned notification. The writ petition is therefore misconceived and is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission, after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. There shall be no order as to costs. GODA RAGHURAM, J Date: 28.7.2008 cvm