THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.7309 of 2010 March 29, 2010 Between: S.Krishnaiah, S/o.Ramulu … Petitioner And Government of Andhra Pradesh, Consumer Affairs, Food and Civil Supplies (CSI) Department, represented by E-Officio Secretary to Government, Secretariat, Hyderabad And others ... Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.7309 of 2010 ORDER: In this writ petition, the cause of action for filing the case is the Notification No.B2/609/2010, dated 08.03.2010 issued by the third respondent. By the said notification, the third respondent, namely, the Revenue Divisional Officer, invited applications for appointment of Fair Price Shop (FPS) dealers at Terpole Village of Kondapur Mandal in Medak District. The petitioner prays for writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the third respondent in contemplating to bifurcate the existing FPS of the village into two shops each as illegal, arbitrary, mala fide and colorable exercise of power. The petitioner statedly belongs to Backward Class Community. He was appointed as FPS dealer of Terpole Village in 2005. Authorization was renewed from time to time. It is valid upto 31.03.2011. When the authorization is in existence, the third respondent issued notification again inviting applications for appointment of FPS dealer for Terpole Village. The petitioner contends that purporting to act under the guidelines issued in G.O.Ms.No.35, dated 17.09.2007, the District Collector bifurcated the existing FPS shop into two shops. The grievance of petitioner is that no notice was issued to him and therefore the action of third respondent in issuing notification is illegal and arbitrary. Counsel for the petitioner, who made these submissions, relied on T.Ramanjaneyulu v State of Andhra Pradesh[1] and an unreported decision in Nagesh v The Government of Andhra Pradesh Consumer Affairs, Food and Civil Supplies (CSI) Department (W.P.No.27076 of 2008, dated 17.04.2009) in support of the contention that when the bifurcation of the existing FPSs adversely affects to exist FPS dealers, the District Collector is bound to give notice. There is no dispute that a person has no right to be appointed as a dealer of FPS. By such non-appointment, the right under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India cannot be said to be infringed. By the same principle, as long as the dealership is not cancelled in accordance with the relevant Control Order, the existing FPS dealership cannot have any right and bifurcation does not result in any civil consequences. Therefore, no notice is required. This was so held by the Supreme Court in District Collector v M.Suresh[2]. Further in T.Ramanjaneyulu’s case, this Court also observed as under. Where the cards attached to a particular shop exceeded the minimum number of cards prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.35 dated 17.09.2007, probably it is open to the District Collector to effect bifurcation without notice to the existing dealer. However, when the bifurcation is sought to be effected on any other ground, the existing dealer is entitled to a prior notice informing him the said grounds and calling upon him to show-cause as to why the cards attached to his shop should not be reduced so as to create a new shop. Therefore, the submission is misconceived. Further, the order of the District Collector bifurcating the existing FPSs is not challenged before this Court. Against any order of bifurcation, an appeal lies to the Director of Civil Supplies and the petitioners may have to avail an alternative remedy before approaching this Court with disputed questions of fact, with regard to number of ration cards attached to petitioner’s shop. The writ petition is misconceived and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ (V.V.S. RAO, J) April 01, 2010 YS [1] 2008 (4) APLJ 52 = 2009 (1) ALD (NOC) 12 [2] 2000 (1) A.L.D. 9 (SC)