IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 24737 of 2005 Between: Alajangi Mohana Rao, S/o. Pentayya, R/o. Jagannadhavalasa Village, G. Sigadam Mandal, Srikakulam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, Srikakulam. 2 The Joint Collector, Srikakulam. 3 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Srikakulam. 4 Saketi Maheswara Rao, S/o. Late Latchayya, G. Singadam Mandal, Srikakulam District. .....RESPONDENTS 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, particularly a Writ in the nature of Mandamus, declaring the orders dt. 10-8- 2005 passed in D.Dis. No. 443/2005 by the 1st respondent, is arbitrary, illegal and consequently direct the 3rd respondent herein to appoint me as Fair Price Shop Dealer and pass such other order or orders as are deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.K.V.SUBRAHMANYA NARUSU Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following Order: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.24737 of 2005 ORDER: The Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer, third respondent issued notiﬁcation dated 20.3.2002 inviting applications for appointment of authorized Fair Price Shop (FPS) dealer at Jagannadhavalasa Village, G.Sigadam Mandal, Srikakulam District. The vacancy is reserved for Scheduled Caste. The petitioner and four others are candidates in the selection. Fourth respondent was selected and appointed as FPS dealer by proceedings dated 08.04.2002. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Joint Collector, second respondent herein, who allowed appeal on 02.04.2005. Aggrieved by the same fourth respondent ﬁled revision before the District Collector, ﬁrst respondent herein, who by impugned order dated 10.08.2005 set aside the order of Joint Collector observing that fourth respondent is not residing in the Village, that the shop is run benami or if fourth respondent is not lifting the stock due to ﬁnancial inability and that his dealership can be cancelled by following the procedure and fresh notiﬁcation may be issued. In this writ petition respondent Nos.1 to 3 ﬁled counter aﬃdavit. Though notice was served on fourth respondent, none appears for him and he is absent. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed strong reliance on Condition 10.16 of G.O.Ms.No.198, Food and Civil Supplies & Consumer Aﬀairs (CS.IV) Department dated 05.02.1996 (which stood modified by G.O.Ms.No.53 dated 06.10.2003) and submits that fourth respondent has already availed a loan for auto rikshaw and therefore, petitioner’s candidature ought to have been preferred to that of fourth respondent. The Joint Collector, while allowing the petitioner’s appeal considered the question whether the petitioner should be given preference over fourth respondent in the following manner. The contention of the appellant is that that the respondent obtained loan of Rs.50,448/- for petrol auto under NSFDC Scheme from Govt., for hire purpose and as such the respondent is not eligible for F.P.shop dealership as per the guidelines issued by Govt., The matter was got enquired into. The Executive Director, District S.C. Service Coop., society, Srikakulam in Rc.No.147/97 MEO dated 6.1.2003 that one auto petrol has been sanctioned to Sri Saketi Maheswara Rao of Jagannadhavalasa Village in G.Sigadam Mandal under NSDFC 1997-98 scheme. The beneﬁciary has to repay the monthly installments @ Rs.970/- per month. So far he repaid an amount of Rs.17,350/-. The balance amount of Rs.44,817/- has to be paid by the above individual. It is a fact that according to para 10.16 of the guidelines issued in G.O.Ms.No.198 Dt.05-02-1996 of Food & Civil Supplies, the appointing authority shall verify and ensure that candidates who have already been beneﬁted under Government schemes, such as Gramodiaya Pathakam etc., are not allotted fair price shop. A perusal of the above would show that when such an allegation was made that fourth respondent availed some Rs.50,000/- loan for petrol auto under NSFDC scheme, the matter was got enquired into, when the Executive Director District S.C. Service Coop., Society, Srikakulam, vide letter dated 06.01.2003, informed that petrol auto was sanctioned to fourth respondent under NSFDC scheme 1997-1998. Therefore, the District Collector, could not have ignored the ﬁnding of fact recorded by the Joint Collector as well as Condition 10.16 of G.O.Ms.No.198 which is to the eﬀect that a candidate who has availed beneﬁt under Government Schemes such as Gramodaya Pathakam, Khadi and Village Industries Board etc., is not allotted FPS. Curiously the District Collector, while setting aside the order of the Joint Collector, again imposed conditions with regard to continuance of fourth respondent as FPS. This itself shows that the order was passed without application of mind and it needs reconsideration. In the result, for the above reasons, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 10.08.2005 is set aside. The matter is remitted to the District Collector to consider the grounds raised by the petitioner herein in the revision ﬁled by fourth respondent keeping in view the guidelines issued by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.198 dated 05.02.1996 which stood modiﬁed by G.O.Ms.No.53 dated 06.10.2003. No costs. _____________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 22nd October, 2008 GHN To 1 The District Collector, Srikakulam. 2 The Joint Collector, Srikakulam. 3 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Srikakulam. 4 2CCs to GP for Civil Supplies 5 2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{RLD}