IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.13137 of 2008 BETWEEN B. Narayana Reddy. ... PETITIONER AND The State of A.P., represented by its Secretary, Civil Supplies Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and five others. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. KASA JAGANMOHAN REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following order: ORDER: This writ petition is filed with the prayer as under: “For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit it is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble High Court may be pleased to pass orders particularly one in the nature of mandamus declaring the impugned notification of the 2nd respondent in Rc.No.K5/849/2008 C dt. 31.5.2008 and the consequential notification of the 3rd respondent in Rc.No.983/2008/C dt. 4.6.2008 as arbitary, illegal, malafide, discriminatory and violative of Art 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and the principles of natural justice and G.O.Ms.No.35 C.A.F&C.S. Dept dt 17.9.2007 consequently set aside the same and grant such other relief as may deemed just and proper in the circumstances of the case.” 2. Petitioner was selected and appointed as fair price shop dealer of Bhudanampalli village, Mudigubba Mandal, Ananthapur District by proceedings of the Revenue Divisional Officer dated 29.03.2008. Thereafter, in the month of May 2008 certain proposals were sent for bifurcation of the shop mainly on the ground that there are two faction groups in the village and the persons belonging to one faction group are not willing to draw the commodities from the shop of the petitioner. Based on the said proposals, recommendations were made to the District Collector, who is the competent authority, and the District Collector by the impugned proceedings being Rc.No.KS/849/2008 dated 31.05.2008 sanctioned creation of new fair price shop (Shop No.2) at Bhudanampalli village duly bifurcating the cards in the existing fair price shop. In view of the aforesaid sanction, the RDO by his proceedings Rc.No.983/2008 dated 04.06.2008 notified the new shop for appointment of fair price shop dealer on permanent basis. At that point of time, this writ petition was filed questioning the proceedings of the District Collector and also the consequential notification issued by the RDO. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents. 4. Sri Kasa Jaganmohan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that after the petitioner was selected and appointed, the proposals were initiated for creation of second shop only at the instance of respondents 5 and 6, who were also the applicants for selection in which the petitioner was selected. Learned counsel further submits that there is no basis for the allegation that there are factions in the village, which necessitated the creation of second shop in the absence of registration of any crime. He also submits that the bifurcation itself is in violation of the guidelines issued by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.35 Consumer Affairs Food & Civil Supplies (CS.1) Department dated 17.09.2007. 5. Counter is filed by the Revenue Divisional Officer denying the allegations of the petitioner. It is stated that the petitioner was appointed as fair price shop dealer of Bhudanampalli village on 29.03.2008 and he had distributed the essential commodities for the months of May and June 2008. But the said village is faction village and it has two groups, as a result, the cardholders pertaining to backward class of the said village are not interested to draw the essential commodities from the existing shop. Therefore, as per the request of the cardholders and resolution passed by the Mandal Food Committee, the bifurcation proposals were initiated by the Tahsildar and the District Collector sanctioned a new fair price shop vide proceedings dated 31.05.2008. It is further stated that in order to avoid law and order problem and also for the convenience of the cardholders recommendations were made for creation of new shop and based upon which the existing shop was bifurcated into shop Nos.I and II. 6. Learned Government Pleader submits that pursuant to the notification, which is under challenge, the sixth respondent herein was appointed as fair price shop dealer for the newly created shop. 7. Although, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that only at the instance of respondents 5 and 6 the bifurcation proposals were initiated, in view of the stand taken by the respondents in the counter the same cannot be accepted. In the impugned order issued by the District Collector it is categorically stated that Bhudanampalli village is a faction ridden village and recording it as a special reason, the Collector, Ananthapur accorded sanction for creation of new shop. Merely because no crime has been registered that by itself is no ground to discard the reason recorded by the District Collector, Ananthapur. It is true that under the guidelines issued for rationalization of fair price shops under G.O.Ms.No.35 dated 17.09.2007 there shall not be less than 600 cards for creation of two shops. But in the present case, keeping in view the factions in the village as a special reason, the second shop is created and this Court is of the view that merely because the total number of cards are not more than 600 in terms of the aforesaid guidelines that by itself is not a ground to interfere with the impugned proceedings. It is also to be noticed that pursuant to the impugned notification issued by the third respondent, the sixth respondent is already appointed as fair price shop dealer in the year 2008 and that appointment is not under challenge in the present writ petition by way of any amendment. As much as it is stated that after the appointment of the sixth respondent for the newly created second shop there is smooth running of the two shops, this Court is of the view that it is not a fit case to interfere with the impugned proceedings. The writ petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J September 7, 2011 DSK