HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.18579 of 2008 Date: 20.10.2010 Between : Nikitha Mahila Mandali, Ayyavaripalli, rep. by Smt.V.Savitri. …….Petitioner And The District Collector, Chittoor & others. ….Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.18579 of 2008 ORDER : Heard learned counsel for petitioner, the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 2 and also the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3. To fill up the vacancy of fair price shop dealer in Ayyavaripalli village of Valmikipuram Mandal in Chittoor District, notification was issued by the 2nd respondent- Revenue Divisional Officer, inviting applications. In response to the same, the petitioner as well as the 3rd respondent-Mahila Mandali Groups, have applied. In the selections made by the Revenue Divisional Officer, the 3rd respondent was selected and appointed. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner carried the matter by way of appeal before the appellate authority-Joint Collector, Chittoor. The Joint Collector, on the ground that there are some differences in the 3rd respondent-Mahila Mandali, set aside the selection and directed to notify the vacancy afresh and to appoint suitable group as dealer. As against the same, the 3rd respondent carried the matter in revision before the 1st respondent-District Collector. The District Collector, by impugned order, has set aside the order of the Joint Collector by recording a finding that the Joint Collector did not record any reasons for allowing the appeal preferred by the petitioner herein. The revisional authority further recorded a finding that the differences within the group is not a valid ground to set aside the appointment. Aggrieved by the order of the revisional authority allowing the revision filed by the 3rd respondent, this writ petition is filed. In this writ petition, it is contended by the learned counsel for petitioner that one of the members in the 3rd respondent-group is the wife of the local Sarpanch, as such, as per the guidelines issued for appointment of fair price shop dealers, the 3rd respondent should not have been appointed. In this case, it is to be noticed that the application is made on behalf of Mahila Mandali, a group, but not by any individual. It is also to be noticed that the Joint Collector did not record any valid reason to set aside the appointment of the 3rd respondent herein. The Joint Collector allowed the appeal preferred by the petitioner only on the ground that there are differences amongst the group members of the 3rd respondent-Mahila Mandali, but that is no ground as per the Control Order framed under the Essential Commodities Act and also the guidelines issued for appointment of fair price shop dealers. In that view of the matter, the revisional authority has rightly set aside the order of the Joint Collector. Even the plea of the petitioner that one of the members of the 3rd respondent- Mahila Mandali, is the wife of the Sarpanch, is also no ground to set aside the selection of the 3rd respondent. When an application is made on behalf of Mahila Mandali group and when such Mahila Mandali is appointed as a fair price shop dealer, merely because one of the members is wife of the Sarpanch, the appointment given to the 3rd respondent-Mahila Mandali for distribution of essential commodities, cannot be set aside. As no other ground is raised, the writ petition is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 20th October 2010 ajr