THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.5317 of 2008 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed with the prayer, which reads as under: “For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, the petitioner herein pray that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in bifurcating the existing FP Shop of the petitioner at Parakondapadu Village, Gudlur Mandal, Prakasam District and creating a new F.P. Shop in favour of the 4th respondent at Vadlamudivaripalem Village Vide Proceedings of the 1st respondent in Rc.No.CS2/525/2006, dt. 20-2-2006 contrary to the guidelines and norms in GO Ms.No.35, dt. 17-9-2007 and the purport and objects of the public distribution system in law, as arbitrary, mala fide, illegal and without jurisdiction.” There was only one fair price shop governing the Villages of Parakondapadu and Vadlamudivaripalem, Gudlur Mandal, Prakasam District. Proposals were sent by the third respondent - Tahsildar, Gudlur Mandal, for creation of a new fair price shop in Vadlamudivaripalem Village by bifurcating existing fair price shop of Parakondapadu Village. In the proposals, it is stated that the cardholders of Vadlamudivaripalem Village were getting their essential commodities from the existing fair price shop in Parakondapadu Village and are facing difficulty, as it is situated at a distance of more than 1 ½ kilometers from their habitation. There upon, the first respondent – Collector and District Magistrate, Prakasam, by order, dated 20.02.2006 passed in Rc.CS2/525/2006, approved the proposal for bifurcation of the existing fair price shop by creating new fair price shop at Vadlamudivaripalem Village and thereby, out of 458 cards, 221 cards were attached to the petitioner’s fair price shop and 237 cards to the newly created shop. Consequent to such approval, the second respondent – Revenue Divisional Officer, Kandukur, Prakasam District, issued a notification inviting applications and made selections for appointment of a dealer for newly created fair price shop. In the selections, the fourth respondent was selected and appointed. In this Writ Petition, mainly, bifurcation proposals are questioned on the ground that the same are in violation of the guidelines issued by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.35, dated 17.09.2007. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that both the Villages are located at a distance of 100 meters, as such, there is no need to sent proposals by the third respondent for bifurcation. Counter-affidavit is filed on behalf of the second respondent. In the said counter-affidavit, while denying various allegations of the petitioner, it is stated that taking the distance factor in getting essential commodities by the cardholders of Vadlamudivaripalem Village from the existing fair price shop of Parakondapadu Village, bifurcation proposals were sent and the same were approved by the first respondent. The allegation of the petitioner that the bifurcation proposals are contrary to G.O.Ms.No.35, dated 17.09.2007, is denied. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for respondents 1 to 3 and the learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent. I have perused the bifurcation proceedings and also the counter- affidavit filed on behalf of the second respondent. In the counter-affidavit, it is categorically stated that the cardholders of Vadlamudivaripalem Village are at a distance of more than 1-1.5 kilometers from the existing shop, which is located in Parakondapadu Village. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on guideline No.6 (v) as mentioned in G.O.Ms.No.35, dated 17.09.2007. At the same time, it is to be seen that in the said G.O., there is yet another guideline i.e. 6 (ii), which reads as under: “Opening of the fair price shop within one kilometer radius of the residence of the card holders shall be scrupulously followed.” In guideline No.6 (ii), there is a clear direction for opening a fair price shop within one kilometer radius from the residence of the cardholders and the same is to be followed scrupulously. Though guideline No.6 (v) indicates with regard to number of cards for the purpose of bifurcation, the same has to be considered with reference to guideline No.6 (ii). From a perusal of the proposals submitted by the third respondent and also the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the second respondent, it is clear that the cardholders of Vadlamudivaripalem Village are residing at a distance of more than one kilometer from the existing fair price shop situated at Parakondapadu Village. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that consequential appointment of the fourth respondent is contrary to the guidelines mentioned in G.O.Ms.No.35, dated 17.09.2007. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in this Writ Petition for grant of relief in favour of the petitioner as prayed for. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 8th SEPTEMBER, 2011. kvni