THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.15286 of 2010 ORDER: Petitioner is a cardholder for supply of essential commodities under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Public Distribution System Control Order, 2008. In Chinnapandraka Village of Kruthivennu Mandal, there are three fair price shop bearing Nos.28, 29 and 30, which are catering to the needs of residents of that village and also two other villages, by names, Ramapuram and Seetharamapuram, some residents of which, appeared to have made a representation for rationalization of household supply cards and creation of one more shop at Ramapuram Village. It appears that the case of such persons is that existing shop is at the distance of two kilometers from Ramapuram and Seetharamapuram, and if another shop is created in Ramapuram Village, it will be convenient for them. When enquiry was conducted and proposals were submitted by the third respondent – Tahsildar, Kruthivennu Mandal, for creation of a new fair price shop in Seetharamapuram Village, the first respondent - District Collector, Krishna, Machilipatnam, accepted for the same. The petitioner and others submitted a representation to the first respondent stating that creation of new fair price shop is a politically motivated action, and requested not to divide the household supply cards. On the ground that their representation was not considered, the petitioner, a cardholder, singularly approached this Court seeking to declare the action of the respondents in not considering such representation before taking decision for transfer of household supply cards from existing fair price shop No.28 to a fair price shop, which is sought to be created. If the petitioner is having any grievance for transfer of his household supply card from one fair price shop to another fair price shop, his representation can be considered after creation of new fair price shop at the time of allocation of cards. But, at the outset, even before such fair price shop is established, on the ground that his representation is not being considered, the petitioner cannot rush to this Court. It appears, the relief sought by the petitioner in this writ petition is an engineered one at the instance of existing fair price shop dealers so as to retain all household supply cards. Having regard to the objective of the aforesaid Control Order, convenience of the cardholders is paramount consideration but no fair price shop dealer or any other person can have a right to retain particular number of shops or particular number of cards attached thereto. If for any reason, the petitioner wants to transfer his household supply card to new fair price shop, I am sure, if any representation is made by him in that regard, his case will be considered but before creation of a fair price shop, no notice need be given to the petitioner, who is the cardholder, at this stage. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. However, it is open to the petitioner that if he wishes to continue in existing fair price shop, this order will not preclude him to make a representation to the authority concerned. No order as to costs. ________________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 4th OCTOBER, 2010. kvni