IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 9487 of 2008 Between: Parsa Gopalakrishna, S/o Late Ramaiah, R/o. Ayyavari Rudravaram (v), Mandavalli (M), Krishna District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of A.P. Rep by its Secretariat, (Civil Supplies)Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The District Collector (CS, Krishna, Krishna District, At Machilipatnam. 3 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Gudivada, Krishna District. 4 The Tahasildar, Mandavalli (M, at Mandavalli, Krishna District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.KOWTURU VINAYA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents: ASST. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following : Order: This Writ Petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus to declare notification dated 10-04-2008 issued by respondent No.3, to the extent it reserved the vacancy of fair price shop dealership of Ayyavari Rudravaram Village, Mandavalli Mandal, Krishna District, for candidates belonging to physically handicapped category, as illegal and arbitrary. Heard Sri M.M.M.Srinivasa Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies and perused the record. The petitioner is the son of deceased permanent dealer of the above-mentioned fair price shop. When his request for appointment in the place of his father was not favourably considered, petitioner filed W.P.No.28416 of 2007. While the said Writ Petition is pending, the impugned notification is issued whereunder the dealership of fair price shop in question is shown to have been reserved for physically handicapped candidates. At the hearing, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that while there were vacancies in respect of two other fair price shops which arose earlier than arising of vacancy of the shop in question, the respondents, without notifying those two vacancies, arbitrarily notified the vacancy of the shop in question and reserved the same for the candidates belonging to physically handicapped category. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies, on instructions, submitted that there are 341 fair price shops in Gudivada Revenue Division, and in view of implementation of reservation policy, the physically handicapped persons are entitled to 3% of the total number of shops, which works out to 11. He submitted a statement of the vacancy position, according to which five men and four women belonging to the physically handicapped category are appointed and functioning as fair price shop dealers, leaving a balance of two vacancies to be filled up. He, therefore, submitted that in order to fill up one of the two existing vacancies, the shop in question is reserved for the said category. I have considered the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that with a mala fide intention, the respondents notified the fair price shop in question for the persons belonging to physically handicapped category, and I have not felt persuaded to accept the same. The petitioner has not made any specific allegations against any of the respondents. As held in E. P. Royappa v. State of T.N. and another, the allegations of mala fides are often more easily made than proved, and such allegations demand high degree of proof. In order to establish the plea of mala fides, not only that the petitioner shall make specific allegations against an individual but shall also implead the said individual as a party in his personal capacity. The petitioner has neither made specific allegations against any of the respondents nor impleaded them in their personal capacity. The petitioner failed to substantiate the vague allegation of mala fides by producing any material. Hence, the plea of mala fides raised by the petitioner is not worthy of acceptance. From the statement produced by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies, I am convinced that, with a view to fill up the existing vacancy pertaining to physically handicapped category, the fair price shop in question is reserved for the said category. I, therefore, do not see any arbitrariness or unreasonableness in this action of the respondents. For the above-mentioned reasons, the Writ Petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.12518 of 2008 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. _____________________ (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) 1st May, 2008 LUR