HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.159 of 2008 Date : 18.08.2011 Between : Peddi Venkataramana @ Venkata Ramana Murthy & another. …..Petitioners And The District Collector (C.S), Vizianagaram District & others. …..Respondents HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.159 of 2008 ORDER : The petitioners are retail kerosene dealers. In this writ petition, they have questioned the proceedings of the 1st respondent-District Collector, dated 16.12.2007, issued in Rc.No.464/2005 G1. Earlier, the petitioners have filed writ petitions in W.P.Nos.17523 and 17527 of 2006, seeking to declare the action of respondents in attempting to divert the kerosene quota from their shops to the fair price shops. This Court, while disposing of the aforesaid writ petitions along with a batch of cases by common order, dated 8th of October 2007, permitted the petitioners to make a representation to the District Collector and till the claim of petitioners is considered by the District Collector, status quo is to be maintained with regard to supply of kerosene. In the light of the directions issued by this Court, the impugned order is passed, re-organising the kerosene oil allocation among the fair price shop dealers/nominated retailers. Earlier, though fair price shops are established under the A.P. Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2001 for supply of essential commodities, so far as kerosene is concerned, it was being allocated separately to the nominated retailers like petitioners. For the purpose of bringing both the commodities under one roof for the convenience of consumers, a policy decision is taken by the Government to distribute kerosene also through the fair price shops. There was also a policy to consider the eligible nominated retailers to be appointed as fair price shop dealers, subject to fulfilling the conditions laid down in the A.P. Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2001. In this writ petition, it is the case of the petitioners that without considering their claim for appointment as fair price shop dealers, the impugned orders are passed contrary to the common judgment referred above in W.P.No.17523 of 2006 and batch, dated 8th October 2007. It is further submitted that in any event, the respondents should have considered the claim of petitioners for appointment as fair price shop dealers, as per the policy. Detailed counter affidavits are filed on behalf of Government and also the unofficial respondents, who are fair price shop dealers. In the counters, it is stated that though a common judgment was rendered by this Court in the writ petitions filed by the fair price shop dealers, who are respondents 3 to 6 in this writ petition, permitting them to make a representation to the respondents, no such representation is filed by the petitioners, as permitted by this Court. In the counter, it is further stated that in order to make available all essential commodities under one roof, the Government has issued instructions vide Circular No.PDS.II(3)/2847/05, dated 19.03.2005, for conversion of nominated dealers/hawkers as regular fair price shop dealers in the vacancies that arise, subject to fulfilling the conditions laid down in A.P. Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2001. It is stated that as per the said Control Order, the person to be appointed as a fair price shop dealer, shall pass 10th Class and shall be in the age group of 18 to 40 years, but the petitioners herein do not fulfill the said eligibility criteria as laid down in the Control Order. It is further stated that only to implement the policy decision taken by the Government, the impugned orders are passed, allocating kerosene supplies to the fair price shop dealers. May be that the petitioners were given authorization for distribution of kerosene when the same was not being distributed through the fair price shop dealers, who were given authorization for distribution of essential commodities, but when a policy decision has been taken by the Government to make available kerosene oil as well as essential commodities through the fair price shops, the petitioners cannot claim any right as such. Though there is a policy to consider the claims of retail kerosene dealers for appointment as fair price shop dealers, the same is subject to fulfilling the conditions notified in the A.P. Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2001. As stated in the counter, it is evident that one to be appointed as a fair price shop dealer, he has to be qualified with regard to age and also possess academic qualification. When the petitioners have not passed SSC examination, which is the requisite qualification for appointment as fair price shop dealer and when they are over-aged, they cannot claim any appointment. In any event, having filed earlier writ petitions almost with the similar prayer and without even making any representation in the light of the directions issued by this Court as per the common judgment, dated 8th October 2007 in W.P.No.17523 of 2006 and batch, petitioners have no legal right to seek for continuation of kerosene supply through them. It is to be noticed that such policy decisions are taken by the Government for the benefit of consumers to provide all the commodities including kerosene oil under one roof. In that view of the matter, and in view of the earlier order passed by this Court in the earlier batch of writ petitions, the impugned order is passed. When the impugned order, dated 16.12.2007 is passed in compliance of the directions issued by this Court in the common judgment, which has become final, I do not find any illegality in the said order. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 18th August 2011 ajr