THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.15851 of 2010 ORDER: In this writ petition, petitioner, who is a dealer for Fair Price Shop No.362 and running it in Door No.20-2-888/1, Doodhbowli, Hyderabad, questioned the proceedings bearing No.B1/2265/2010, dated 17.06.2010, issued by the first respondent - Chief Rationing Officer, Hyderabad, and the consequential letter bearing No.B1/2164/2010, dated 26.06.2010. In view of abnormal increase of ration cards in certain areas in Circle-III of Hyderabad, the first respondent has ordered for adjustment of cards among various dealers. The petitioner was running Fair Price Shop No.362 with a total number of 448 cards. In the said process of re-adjustment, he was attached with additional cards and in total, 972 cards, and was asked to run the shop at Fatimanagar. Consequently, when the petitioner was not taking steps pursuant to such adjustment, the first respondent addressed letter, dated 26.06.2010, instructing the petitioner to secure the mulgi immediately and furnish the rental agreement to the third respondent - Assistant Supply Officer, Circle-III, Hyderabad, concerned, failing which, further steps would be taken in accordance with the Andhra Pradesh State Public Distribution System Control Order, 2008. It is the grievance of the petitioner that under the guise of adjustment of ration cards, by allotting additional cards, the petitioner was asked to run the Fair Price Shop at Fatimanagar. It is to be seen that earlier, the petitioner was running the Fair Price Shop at Doodhbowli, Hyderabad. There were only 448 BPL cards attached to his shop. In the process of adjustment, totally 972 cards were allotted to his shop and he was asked to run the shop at Fatimanagar. The impugned proceedings were issued keeping in mind the convenience of the cardholders and also difficulties faced by them. From a reading of the impugned proceedings issued by the first respondent and further, letter, dated 26.06.2010, it is evident that it is not a case of either cancelling or depriving the authorisation held by the petitioner. Although he is running the Fair Price Shop at Doodhbowli with 448 cards, by making further allotment, he was asked to run it at Fatimanagar. Although it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that it will cost higher amount to obtain a mulgi at the place where he was asked to shift the shop, having regard to the objective of the Control Order, it is to be seen that convenience of the cardholders is paramount consideration. Merely because the petitioner is running Fair Price Shop at Doodhbowli, all cards cannot be allotted to him. In view of increase of cards from 448 to 972, the petitioner will also have more commission/profit than what he was getting towards profit in the existing shop, where only 448 cards were attached to it. Further, in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it is clearly stated that as per the policy of the Government, the shop is asked to open at Fatimanagar with increased cards of 972 keeping in mind the convenience of the cardholders as well as the economic viability of the petitioner. For the aforesaid reasons, for attachment of additional cards, no enquiry need be conducted and no notice need be issued before issuing the impugned proceedings. It is always open for the authorities to review the allotment of number of cards among the shops available in the area, as such, I do not find any illegality, which warrants interference in the impugned proceedings. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 5th OCTOBER, 2010. kvni