THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.5379 OF 2006 BETWEEN: Smt. T.M. Begum W/o. Abdul Pale, F.P. Shop Dealer, Salman Centre Panchayat, Chirala, Prakasam District. PETITIONER And 1. The Director of Civil Supplies, Government of A.P., Civil Supplies Bhavan, A.P., Hyderabad, and others. RESPONDENTS Counsel for the petitioner: R.K. Jwala Counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 5: G.P. for Civil Supplies Counsel for the respondent No.6: Mr. Ganduri Nageswara Rao The Court made the following order: ORDER: The petitioner, a fair price shop dealer of Shop No.54, Salmon Centre, Chirala Mandal, Prakasam District, has filed this writ petition questioning the order of the 1st respondent, viz., the Director of Civil Supplies, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad passed in Appeal No.N1/12802/2005, dated 25.02.2006, confirming the orders of the 2nd respondent Collector and District Magistrate, Ongole, Prakasam District, dated 12.07.2005 in proceedings No.CS2/306/05, creating a new fair price shop at Salmon Centre by bifurcating shop No.54 of the petitioner and shop No.56 of the another dealer, namely, G. Venkata Ramanjaneya Gupta (G.V.R. Gupta), as illegal. 2. The shop of the petitioner is attached with 658 supply cards out of which, 452 are white cards and 206 are pink cards. Shop No.56 of G.V.R. Gupta was attached with 769 cards out of which, 514 are white cards and 255 are pink cards. The 4th respondent, viz., the Mandal Revenue Officer, Chirala sent proposals in Rc.B.940/2004, dated 17.12.2004 reporting that the card holders have to travel more than 1 km., to draw ration, and thus, recommended for creating another shop by detaching 448 cards (312 white + 136 pink) from the shop of the petitioner and 460 cards (300 white + 160 pink) from shop No.56. The said recommendation was accepted and accordingly, proceedings dated 12.07.2005 were issued creating a new shop with 460 cards (300 white + 160 pink). Thereupon a notification No.RCC/1913/2004 dated 26.09.2005 was issued calling for applications for appointment of a dealer. It appears that the 6th respondent alone responded to the notification and she was appointed as dealer by orders dated 9.10.2005. In this writ petition, the petitioner is not concerned with the selection process and appointment of the 6th respondent as dealer. The petitioner feeling aggrieved by the orders of the 2nd respondent dated 12.07.2005, preferred an appeal to the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent declined to interfere with the orders of the 2nd respondent and dismissed the appeal by orders in Appeal No.N1/12802/2005, dated 25.02.2006. The petitioner has therefore filed this writ petition for the aforesaid relief. 3. Heard Sri R.K. Jwala, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies for respondents 1 to 5 and Sri Ganduri Nageswara Rao, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.6. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the 1st respondent passed the order without hearing the petitioner and therefore, the order is violative of the principles of natural justice. He would contend that the appeal was initially posted for hearing on 4.02.2006 and 18.02.2006 on which dates the petitioner was ready to go on with the hearing of the case. The matter was again posted on 25.02.2006, but her counsel reported that he was unwell and bedridden due to viral fever and requested her to seek adjournment of hearing of the case either by appearing in person or deputing any responsible person on her behalf. The petitioner accordingly deputed her brother-in-law, namely, Basha to seek adjournment of hearing of the case and the counsel also sent a telegram and fax on 25.02.2006. Though the said Basha, who was deputed by the petitioner, personally appeared and requested the 1st respondent to adjourn hearing of the case the 1st respondent proceeded as if he argued the case. The learned counsel would draw the attention of this Court to the affidavit filed by him in this writ petition. It is contended that without heeding to the request for adjournment, the 1st respondent dismissed the appeal. It is therefore contended that the order was passed without hearing the petitioner, and the same is violative of the principles of natural justice. 5. The learned counsel would further contend that bifurcation of her shop and creation of a new shop is contrary to the guidelines issued by the State Government in Memo No.148/CS.I/98-1, dated 22.01.1999, which inter alia stipulates that the shops must be economically viable and should be within a distance of 1 km., to the residences of the card holders and that no new shop should be sanctioned in the rural areas if the number of cards to be attached to the fair price shop are less than 350. The petitioner would place reliance on the distance certificate issued by the Panchayat Secretary certifying that the shop of the petitioner is located within a distance of 1/2 Km., from the residences of the card holders. He would therefore dispute the report of the 4th respondent that the distance is more than 1 km. The learned counsel would submit that due to denial of hearing, the distance certificate of the Panchayat Secretary could not be filed before the 1st respondent. He would therefore urge that the matter should be reconsidered by the 1st respondent. 6. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader would contend that even after bifurcation, the petitioner is left with sufficient number of cards and the same is viable to run the shop. He would further contend that the petitioner has no right to question the bifurcation. Nonetheless, the 1st respondent heard the representation of the petitioner and passed the impugned order. It is also contended that the case was specifically posted on 25.02.2006 on the assurance of the counsel to go on with hearing and at any rate the impugned order is not vitiated even if the counsel was not heard. He would therefore urge that the impugned order is sustainable. 7. In the light of the rival contentions it is necessary to consider whether the petitioner is entitled to claim a right of hearing in the appeal. 8. The Supreme Court in District Collector and another v. B. Suresh and others[1] while dealing with the question as to whether an existing dealer has a right to oppose the bifurcation and notice is required before bifurcation, held that no such right is available to a dealer nor has he a right to be heard. The relevant portion reads as follows. The short question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the respondents, who were appointed as Fair Price Shop Dealers under the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Commodities (Regulation of Distribution by Card System) Order, 1973, can claim a right to be noticed when the State Government decides to bifurcate the shops and reduce the number of cards. The High Court by the impugned judgment, being of the opinion that such Fair Price Shop Dealers are to be noticed before any alteration is made, has quashed the decision of the Government. The State assails the aforesaid judgment of the High Court. Under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Commodities (Regulation of Distribution by Card System) Order, 1973, which order has been framed under the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 a Fair Price Shop Dealer has no right to be appointed as such dealer. The licence which such dealer has obtained under the provisions of the Act to deal with the commodities has not been cancelled. The right to trade under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India is not being affected in any manner. The Government, as a policy decision, decided to reduce the number of cards per dealer. Such decision does not affect the rights, if any, of the Fair Price Shop Dealers and as such the High Court was in error to hold that they were to be given any notice prior to the impugned decision of the State Government.” In view of the aforesaid law declared by the Apex Court, the petitioner cannot claim a right of hearing nor can she claim violation of principles of natural justice, even if she had not been heard in the appeal. 9. Even otherwise, in the instant case the petitioner cannot complain violation of principles of natural justice as she was afforded opportunity of hearing. Even according to the petitioner notice of hearing on 25.02.2006 was given to her, but what the petitioner complains is that due to the illness of her advocate she could not present her case. She complains that the 1st respondent denied her request for adjournment and the same amounts to violation of principles of natural justice. 10. Adjournment of a case is not a right of a party. It cannot be granted as a matter of course. Hearing of a case on the day fixed is the general rule whereas an adjournment is only an exception which may be justified in the extreme unavoidable circumstances and for valid reasons. Grant of adjournment for mere asking or without valid reasons would subvert administration of justice. 11. In the instant case it is seen that the case was posted on 4.02.2006 and 18.02.2006. At the request of the counsel, the hearing was adjourned to 25.02.2006. It is therefore clear that the petitioner was aware even on 18.02.2006 that the matter would go on, on 25.02.2006. Assuming that the counsel was unwell, the petitioner could have made alternative arrangement. 12. In this context it is relevant to extract the impugned order. “The case has been posted for hearing on 04.02.2006, 18.02.2006 and 25.02.2006. The counsel for the appellants has requested to adjourn the case on some plea or other. On 18.02.2006 the appellant authority has specifically informed the advocate for the appellant that the case is finally posted for hearing on 25.02.2006. Accordingly final notice was served on the advocate through Registered Post with Acknowledgement Due. On 25.02.2006 the advocate has again failed to appear before the Director of Civil Supplies……………” “……. The advocate for the appellant was informed that the case is finally posted on 25.02.2006 and the advocate has assured that he would put forth his arguments on 25.02.2006. In the absence of the advocate it is construed that he has nothing more to argue over and above the contents of appeal and the grounds of appeal would suffice to dispose of the appeal……” 13. The petitioner has not denied nor traversed the said facts. On the other hand, she admitted that the case was posted for hearing on 4.02.2006, 18.02.2006 and 25.02.2006. That being the case, even assuming that Basha sought for adjournment it cannot be said that the petitioner was denied the opportunity of being heard. That apart, her statement that she was ready with necessary material evidence of route map and distance certificate dated 17.02.2006 is certainly an after thought. By her own showing she could not have been ready on 4.02.2006 and 18.02.2006 as the alleged certificate itself is dated 17.02.2006. 14. The contention that creation of new shop is contrary to the guidelines issued by the State Government in Memo No.148/CS.1/98- 1, dated 22.01.1999 with reference to the economical viability and the distance are violative of the Circular cannot be countenanced. The Mandal Revenue Officer before submitting the proposal undertook a survey and submitted the proposal along with the route map showing the distance to the existing fair price shop as beyond 1 km., and enclosing the sketch thereto. Therefore, no credence can be given to the certificate of the Panchayat Secretary, who is not competent to issue such certificates. Indisputably, even after bifurcation, the shop of the petitioner is attached with 448 cards. The 1st respondent therefore rightly found that the shop of the petitioner is economically viable. The 1st respondent rightly found that a new shop has to be created keeping in view the interest of the locality, which mostly comprises of weaker sections. Therefore the impugned order does not suffer from any legal infirmity or illegality warranting interference of this Court. 15. There are no merits in the writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J. 31.12.2010 Js. Note : Issue C.C. in one week. B/O LVL [1] 2000 (1) ALD 9 (SC)