IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF APRIL, TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION NO : 3882 of 2003 Between: Rayala Nageswara Rao, S/o.Ramulu, Peruvancha (V), Kallur (M), Khammam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, Khammam (C.S). 2 The Jt.Collector, Khammam (C.S). 3 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Khammam. 4 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Kallur (M), Khammam District. 5 Ramadagu China Ramakrishna, S/o.Gurubrahman, R/o.Peruvancha (V), Kallur (M), Khammam 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 writ or direction more preferably a Writ of Mandamus declaring the order issued by the first respondent in Rev.No.D/666/02, dated:25.2.2003 as confirming the order issued by the 2nd respondnet in Appeal No.D/88/02, dt:15.11.02 are illegal, arbitrary and violative principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 4 to continue the petitioner as Fair Price Shop Dealer of Peruvancha (V), Kallur (M), Khammam District usual and pass. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.KOWTURU VINAYA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following : ORDER: The petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus declaring the order passed by the first respondent/District Collector in Rev.No.D/666/02, dated 25.02.2003, confirming the order passed by the second respondent/Joint Collector in Appeal No.D/88/02, dated 15.11.2002, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently to direct the respondents 1 to 4 to continue the petitioner as Fair Price Shop Dealer of Peruvancha village, Kallur mandal, Khammam District as usual. It is the case of the petitioner that pursuant to the notification dated 15.11.2001 calling for applications from eligible B.C. candidates for appointment as Fair Price Shop Dealer of Peruvancha village, he had applied for the same and he was selected and appointed as fair price shop dealer by the order of the 3rd respondent dated 28.11.2001. Since then, the petitioner has been functioning as fair price shop dealer. Aggrieved by the said order, the 5th respondent filed an appeal before the 2nd respondent, who allowed the same on 15.11.2002 setting aside the order of the 3rd respondent on the ground that the brother of petitioner, a close relative, is a government employee in Social Welfare Department and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for appointment as fair price dealer. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed a revision before the 1st respondent, who confirmed the said order of the 2nd respondent, by order dated 25.02.2003. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that as per the instructions issued by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.198.F, CS & CA (CS.IV) Department, dated 05.02.1996 at Clause 10.2, any close relative of government employee specially those working in Civil Supplies Department or Revenue Department or the Civil Supplies Corporation shall not be appointed as fair price shop dealer. Admittedly, the alleged brother of the petitioner is said to have been working in social welfare department, but not in the in Civil Supplies Department or Revenue Department or the Civil Supplies Corporation. However, as the petitioner is not living with his brother and other family members, as joint family, it cannot be said that the petitioner is not entitled to have the benefit of the fair price shop dealership. Further the brother of the petitioner is working in social welfare department elsewhere and therefore, the question of influencing his brother in functioning of the fair price shop does not arise. Hence, the Revenue Divisional Officer has rightly considered the candidature of the petitioner, but the appellate authority erroneously held that the petitioner is not entitled for fair price shop dealership as his close relation is working as watchman in Social Welfare Department. I am of the opinion that as the brother of the petitioner is working in social welfare department, he cannot be disqualified for appointment as fair price shop dealer, even as per the said G.O. Therefore, the orders passed by the appellate authority as well as revisional authority are liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed setting aside the orders of the appellate authority/Joint Collector and the revisional authority/Collector while upholding the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer-3rd respondent appointing the petitioner as fair price shop dealer. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ V.ESWARAIAH, J. Date:01.04.2008 Ccm To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{TML}