THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CONTEMPT CASE NO.355 OF 2011 ORDER: The petitioners, four in number, filed Writ Petition being W.P.No.19481 of 2009 challenging the notifications issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer (East Division), Ranga Reddy District, for appointment of 86 Fair Price Shop (FPS) Dealers in ten (10) Mandals. The main grievance of the petitioners was that the reservation was allowed in excess of permitted percentage or lesser than the reservation. This Court disposed of the Writ Petition on 31.05.2010 observing as under. “Unless and until, the total number of shops falling within the jurisdiction of the East Revenue Division, Ranga Reddy District, and unless a comprehensive exercise is undertaken, it is not possible to record a clear finding whether reservation now notified is in excess or less than the required/prescribed as per the G.O.Ms.No.52. In this background, the learned Government Pleader fairly submits that the matter may be remitted to the Revenue Divisional Officer, East Division, Ranga Reddy District, to undertake a comprehensive exercise. Needless to mention, while doing so, the Revenue Divisional Officer may keep in mind the total number of shops, the shops already reserved for Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes/Backward Classes and take necessary action before issuing further notification. This exercise may be completed within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and till such exercise is completed, the existing vacancies shall not be filled up.” In this Contempt Case, the petitioners allege that after receiving the copy of the order, they sent number of representations in vain. The Assistant Government Pleader, after getting instructions, submits that the Revenue Divisional Officer has already completed the exercise with regard to the reservation of FPS Dealerships in his jurisdiction; thereafter two recruitments were also undertaken; and that the reservation was not provided in excess of permissible limits as per para-7 of the guidelines issued vide G.O.Ms.No.52 dated 28.23.3008. This is not seriously disputed by the counsel for the petitioners. In view of the above, the Contempt Case is dismissed as infructuous. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 24th November 2011 RRB