THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.24997 of 2009 Date:01.02.2011 Between: B. Ananda Rao ..... Petitioner AND The Director/Commissioner, Hyderabad and others .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri A. Rama Rao Counsel for Respondents: Sri M. Sudhir, standing counsel for APSCC The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the advertisement dated 12.11.2009 of respondent No.3 as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner is an aspirant for allotment of shop No.4 in SC Corporation Shopping Complex, Srikakulam. The said shop was earlier allotted in favour of one Smt. Rana Sandhya Rani of Chintuvalasa Village, Gara Mandal. Evidently the said allottee has made a representation to respondent Nos.2 and 3 to the effect that as she has been selected as Telugu pandit, the allotment may be transferred in favour of her younger brother – Rana Sudheer Kumar. The said application was considered, but having regard to the object of the District Schedule Caste Service Cooperative Society Limited, Srikakulam (for short ‘the Society’) that allotment of shops shall be made to the educated unemployed scheduled caste youth for their livelihood, it was decided, while cancelling the allotment in favour of Smt. Rana Sandhya Rani, that the said shop shall be notified through paper publication calling for applications from eligible, interested and unemployed educated SC candidates. Accordingly, a press publication was issued, wherein applications were invited from the persons between age group of 21 and 35. The petitioner filed the present writ petition questioning stipulation of upper age limit on the ground that the same was intended to eliminate the petitioner who crossed 35 years of age, as he has brought several irregularities committed by respondent No.3 to the notice of respondent No.2. At the hearing, the learned standing counsel for the respondents placed before the Court a copy of the note file, wherein it is shown that a decision was taken by respondent No.2 on 06.11.2009 stipulating the eligibility criteria which include that the aspirant should be within the age group between 21 and 35. Though the petitioner raised serious allegations of mala fides, no material is filed to satisfy the same. Ordinarily, the Society is entitled to stipulate eligibility criteria for allotment of shops. Evidently, no specific policy has been framed in this regard. The petitioner has pleaded that for the first time the abovementioned criteria has been stipulated and that if this criteria is followed that would cause serious hardship to his interests. It is not the pleaded that of the respondents that the age limit of 35 years is being followed from the beginning. It is also not the case of the respondents that when shop No.4 was originally allotted to Smt. Rana Sandhya Rani, age criteria was prescribed. On the other hand, it is their case that for the first time that on 06.11.2009, a decision was taken by respondent No.2 to restrict consideration to the persons of the age group between 21 and 35. Respondent No.2, who is acting on behalf of the Society, ought to have ensured that a policy decision should be evolved while letting out the shop in general. Unless such a policy decision is taken, decision to restrict the allotment of shop for filling up a casual vacancy does not appear to be proper and reasonable. I am, therefore, of the opinion that non-consideration of the petitioner only on the ground that he is above 35 years of age constitutes arbitrariness. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed with the direction to respondent No.2 to permit the petitioner to make his application. If such an application is made within a period of four weeks from today, respondent Nos.2 and 3 shall consider the same along with others’ applications for allotment of shop No.4. This order, however, does not prevent the Society from evolving a general policy laying down the eligibility criteria for future allotments. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, interim stay granted on 17.11.2009 is vacated and W.P.M.P.No.32548 of 2009 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 01st February, 2011 GHN