IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY THURSDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF JUNE, TWO THOUSAND NINE ONLY WRIT PETITION Nos.22439 and 22450 of 2006 Between: B. Shanthi Kumar … Petitioner (in WP.No.22439 of 2006) Ch. Rajeshwari … Petitioner (in WP.No.22450 of 2006) And The Commissioner of Civil Supplies, Government of A.P., Hyderabad, & others. … Respondents (in both the writ petitions) Counsel for the petitioners : Sri T. Mahender Rao Counsel for the respondents : AGP for Civil Supplies This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos.22439 and 22450 of 2006 COMMON ORDER:- Since both these writ petitions raise common issues, they are heard and being disposed of together by a common order. The petitioners are dealers of fair price shop Nos.4519 and 4517 of Godavarikhani, Ramagundam Mandal, Karimnagar District, respectively. While they were functioning under their respective authorizations, suddenly respondent No.4 has taken away block Nos.21-2 and 21-1 from the petitioners’ respective shops. As this action was not preceded by any notice and an order having been passed, the petitioners filed the present writ petitions. In the separate counter-affidavits, it is inter alia averred by respondent No.4, the Tahsildar, Ramagundam, Karimnagar District, that in view of huge quantities of essential commodities that were required to be distributed through the existing fair price shops of the petitioners, proposals for bifurcation were submitted to respondent No.2 and a meeting in that respect was conducted with all the fair price shop dealers, wherein area was fixed and list of consumers were served on the fair price shop dealers and that the petitioners accepted the said proposals and remitted the D.Ds., for a period of ten months. He further stated that the bifurcation proposals will be prepared in accordance with the instructions of the Government and after approval of the competent authority action will be taken. In support of his contention that respondent No.4 has no jurisdiction to take away the area from the purview of the petitioners’ fair price shops, Sri T. Mahender Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the Government circular issued in CCS.Ref.No.N1/11495/2005, dated 23.08.2005. Clauses 1 and 5 of the said circular read as under: “That, the District Collector shall alone accord permission for creation of new shop and bifurcation of cards from the existing F.P. Shop.” “That, the copies of bifurcation of cards orders shall be served on the affected dealer from whom the cards are proposes to be withdrawn, giving an opportunity to put in his grievances if any.” From the above-reproduced clauses, it is clear that it is only the District Collector, who alone is competent to create a new shop and take away the cards consequent on bifurcation. Therefore, respondent No.4 has no power or jurisdiction whatsoever to take away the cards from the petitioners’ fair price shops. Though it is stated in the counter- affidavits that the petitioners agreed for such an action, no material is placed in support thereof. Respondent No.4 is denuded of the jurisdiction to meddle with the cards of the fair price shop dealers. Irrespective of whether the dealers have agreed or not, his action in taking away such cards without approval of the competent authority, i.e., respondent No.2 cannot be countenanced in law. For the abovementioned reasons, both the writ petitions are allowed and respondent Nos.2 and 4 are directed to restore block Nos.21-2 and 21-2 to the petitioners’ respective shops, if orders of bifurcation are not so far passed by respondent No.2. The petitioners shall be allowed to distribute essential commodities in their respective blocks as mentioned above till passing of bifurcation orders by respondent No.2. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petitions in the manner indicated above, WPMP.No.28515 of 2006 and WVMP.No.450 of 2008 in WP.No.22439 of 2006 and WPMP.No.28529 of 2006 and WVMP.No.3204 of 2007 in WP.No.22450 of 2006 are disposed of as infructuous. _____________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 11.06.2009 ES