IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY THRUSDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JULY, TWO THOUSAND NINE ONLY WRIT PETITION No.18210 of 2007 Between: Chilukamuri Uppalaiah … Petitioner And The District Collector (Civil Supplies), Warangal, Warangal District & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri A. Prabhakar Rao Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Civil Supplies This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 18210 of 2007 ORDER:- At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner is the existing fair price shop dealer in respect of Repaka Village, Regona Mandal, Warangal District. Intending to bifurcate the said shop, respondent No.2 issued notice dated 03.05.2007 calling for objections. The petitioner claimed to have filed his objections. However, respondent No.2 issued notification dated 14.08.2007 calling for applications for filling up the vacancy in respect of the newly created shop. The petitioner filed the present writ petition questioning the said notification mainly on the ground that respondent No.2 has not disposed of his objections having called for the same. At the hearing, Sri A. Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, fairly conceded that the petitioner has not raised objection regarding violation of the existing guidelines for bifurcation of the fair price shop. He merely stated that on account of bifurcation, the petitioner’s income gets reduced. In my view, unless the petitioner is able to show that the proposed bifurcation is in violation of the guidelines issued in this regard, he cannot have any legitimate objection for bifurcation merely on the ground that it results in reduction of his income. Bifurcation is primarily meant for the convenience of the cardholders which is of paramount importance rather than ensuring better profits for the fair price shop dealers. As regards the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent No.2 ought to have disposed of the petitioner’s objections, in my considered view, there is no procedure prescribed either by the statute or under any administrative circulars calling for objections from the existing fair price shop dealers against the proposed bifurcation. Therefore, even if respondent No.2 has issued a notice calling for objections, his failure to dispose of the same and take a decision thereon does not vitiate the decision of bifurcation. In my considered view, none of the legal rights of the petitioner are violated on account of the proposed bifurcation. The writ petition is therefore dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.23371 of 2007 and WVMP.No.2897 of 2007 are also dismissed. _____________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 23.07.2009 ES