THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.30666 of 2011 Date: 21.11.2011 Between: J. Prabhakar Naidu … Petitioner and The Government of A.P., Rep. by its Secretary, Consumer Affairs, Food and Civil Supplies (CS.I) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.30666 of 2011 ORDER : Heard Sri J.M. Naidu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, as well as the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for the respondents. 2. The petitioner is a Fair Price Shop dealer of Shop No.32 of Moravapalli Village, Pakala Mandal, Chittoor District. He has filed this writ petition to declare the action of the 2nd respondent- District Collector, Chittoor District, in proposing to bifurcate his shop by deleting some of the cards from his shop to be attached to a new shop. 3. The petitioner pleads that his shop is allotted 383 cards and it is proposed to be bifurcated by creating a new shop. It is further pleaded that the 3rd respondent-Tahsildar, Pakala Mandal, Chittoor District, after making an exercise in that regard, has submitted a report dated 21.10.2011 to the 2nd respondent, who is bent upon to bifurcate his shop. It is stated that the said proposal, if accepted, would result in reduction of the number of cards attached to his shop making it viable. The petitioner states that the State Government has issued certain guidelines in G.O.Ms.No.35, Consumer Affairs, Food & Civil Supplies (CS-1) Department, dated 17.9.2007, fixing minimum number of cards to be viable. The petitioner, therefore, states that since his shop is attached with only 383 cards, it is not liable for bifurcation. 4. As seen from the pleadings, the 3rd respondent has submitted a report and the 2nd respondent has not taken any decision pursuant to the said report. Therefore, I am of the opinion that this writ petition is pre-mature and the petitioner has no cause of action to approach this Court. However, the petitioner apprehends that, while considering the matter, the 1st respondent is not likely to take the guidelines in the said G.O. into consideration. 5. It is true that the State Government has issued guidelines in the aforesaid G.O. for rationalization of the Fair Price Shops by indicating the number of cards to be attached to each shop to make it viable. This Court has no reason to presume that the 2nd respondent will pass orders by ignoring the said orders of the State Government. 6. Therefore, I am not inclined to grant the relief sought for in the writ petition. The petitioner is always at liberty to avail the remedy in the event the decision goes against him. 7. At this juncture, it is represented that the petitioner has already filed a representation dated 10.11.2011 before the 2nd respondent. If that be so, the 2nd respondent shall duly consider the said representation while taking a decision in the matter. 8. Subject to the above observation and direction, the writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage. No order as to costs. ________________________ JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI 21.11.2011. NOTE: Issue C.C. in one week. (B/O) Msr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.30666 of 2011 21.11.2011 (Msr)