IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WRIT PETITION No.22812 of 2008 PRESENT: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN Between: Smt.K.Shiva Kumari …Petitioner AND The Collector, Guntur District And others. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA WRIT PETITION No. 22812 of 2008 ORDER: The respondents filed W.V.M.P.No.3010 of 2009 and W.V.M.P.No.2894 of 2009 to vacate the interim order made by this Court on 18.10.2008. Counter affidavits have been filed and reply affidavit has also been filed. At the stage of admission of the vacate stay applications, the Advocate on record - Sri Srikanth, representing Sri Panduranga Rao, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies and Sri B.Chinnapa Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent made a request before this Court for final disposal of the writ petition. Hence, the writ petition is being heard finally. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner had taken this Court through the contents of affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition and also the order made in the prior Writ Petition No.7428 of 2005 which was dismissed and Writ Appeal No.801 of 2008, which was disposed of. Despite the observation made in the Writ Appeal, the representation of the writ petitioner to the first respondent has not been considered for disposing of the writ petition in accordance with law. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies has taken this Court through the contents of counter affidavit and would maintain that in the light of the clear stand taken in the counter affidavit and the order made in the Writ Appeal has also been complied with, there is no illegality or arbitrariness. Sri B.Chinnapa Reddy, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent has taken this Court through the contents of counter affidavit filed by him and would contend that it is not a fit case to be entertained by this Court. Heard all the learned counsel on record. The Writ Petitioner filed the present writ petition seeking Writ of Mandamus to declare the proceedings in Rc.No.6003/04- B dated 03.10.2008 issued by the second respondent purporting to bifurcate the Ration Shop run by the writ petitioner and appointing of unofficial respondent to the newly created fair price shop as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the Government Memo No.148/98-1 dated 22.1.1999 and also violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and prays to set aside the same. The case of the writ petitioner is that she belongs to SC community and is a widow; she has three children and out of them, two are daughters and consequent to the death of her husband, the entire burden of bringing up her children has fallen on her shoulders; being a widow, she was allotted Fair Price Shop at Yerrabalem Village, Krosuru Mandal, Guntur District in the year 1999 by the second respondent and was subsequently issued with valid authorization by the second respondent and the said authorization is being renewed from time to time; the last renewal of her dealership was on 20.05.2008, which was renewed up to 31.03.2010; she has been distributing the essential commodities to the cardholders without any complaint and also maintaining all the records properly, as instructed by the authorities and submitting the same to the concerned authorities periodically for their verification; her entire family is eking out livelihood with the commission she was earning by running the said fair price shop. It is also stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that the total population of the village in which the petitioner was running the fair price shop is 1610 and total ration cards issued in the village are 587; the total quantity of essential commodities being allotted to the writ petitioner’s fair price shop is Rice – 70 Qtls, AAY Rice – 980 Kgs and Sugar 340 Kgs; the writ petitioner was earning a commission of Rs.1,619.97 Ps. by distributing these commodities to the cardholders and out of that amount, she has to pay shop rent, electricity bills, unloading charges and other incidental expenses. The writ petitioner also contends that under these conditions, it is very difficult for her to survive with that petty commission she is earning by distributing the said essential commodities and she is facing very hardship. The writ petitioner further contends that while so, the first respondent issued proceedings No.D.Dis.166/05/81 dated 05.03.2005 bifurcating the exiting fair price shop for which, the petitioner is the dealer and created a new shop in the village. She further contends that it appears that these proceedings were issued basing on the proposals made by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Krosuru Mandal, Guntur District and recommended by the second respondent and out of 587 cards, 294 cards were attached to the newly created shop leaving only 293 cards to her shop. As the said action of the respondents would deprive the writ petitioner a decent livelihood and as it is voilative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, she filed Writ Petition No.7428 of 2005 and the Hon’ble Court has granted stay. When the Writ Petition came up for hearing, it was stated that the persons belonging to the OC and BC communities are finding it difficult to go to shop being run by the writ petitioner as it is located in SC colony which is at a little distance from the village. The writ petitioner also submits that the total distance from one corner to other corner of the village is only half a kilometer. However, the said writ petition was dismissed by this Court by an order dated 29.04.2008. It is further stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition that questioning the said writ petition, the petitioner has filed Writ Appeal No.801 of 2008 and the Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court granted stay for a period of three weeks on 04.08.2008 and in the mean time, the writ petitioner has shifted her shop to the center of the village. The Division Bench of this Court, while disposing of the Writ Appeal No. No.801 of 2008 on 19.08.2008 directed that the writ petitioner herein should make a representation to the first respondent to permit her to shift her shop to the center of the village and on such a representation being made by the writ petitioner, the first respondent – Collector should look into it and decide the matter accordingly. Further it is stated that as directed by the Division Bench of this Court, the petitioner immediately made a representation to the first respondent – Collector on 16.08.2008. She alleges that without her representation being considered, a new fair price shop has been created and sanctioned to the un-official respondent herein in Rc.No.6003/04-B dated 03.10.2008 referring only to the interim stay granted in the Writ Appeal on 04.08.2008 and not referring to the final order passed in the Writ Appeal on 19.08.2008 and also to the representation of the petitioner made for non-bifurcation of her fair price shop and that she shifted the shop to the center of the village. The writ petitioner would submit that the order purporting to bifurcate the Fair Price Shop and to allot it to an OC candidate would deprive a SC candidate of her livelihood taking away 294 cards and leaving her meager income which is barely sufficient for expenses. It is further stated by the writ petitioner that in the Counter affidavit filed on behalf of the first respondent in the Writ Petition No.7428 of 2005, it has been stated that Sri N.Kondala Rao and others of Yerrabalem Village of Krosuru Mandal have filed a representation and requested for bifurcation of Fair Price Shop of the writ petitioner, as she is not filing demand drafts timely for lifting of essential commodities and also causing much inconvenience to the card holders in getting essential commodities. She would also contend that to her surprise, now the same N.Kondala Rao has been allotted the bifurcated shop by the impugned order. She contends that it is only at the instance of the said Kondala Rao that this exercise has been done and the said Kondala Rao, who made a representation, has now been given a fair price shop, depriving the writ petitioner of her legitimate right. She would also contend that in fact, as per the Government Memo No.148/CS.1/98-1 dated 22.01.1999 which puts an embargo on creation of a new shop where the population is less than 1650, a new shop cannot be created, as the population of the village is only 1610. Further, the writ petitioner questions that on what basis the marks were awarded to the said Kondala Rao. She contends that in fact, Kurapati Suseela who also applied for the same allotment, not only belongs to SC but also passed B.A., but she was not allotted the Fair Price Shop, whereas the person with intermediate qualification was allotted the Fair Price Shop. She contends that the act of the respondents show that the entire thing is pre-determined. Several other facts have also been narrated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. In the reply affidavit filed by the second respondent - Revenue Divisional Officer, Guntur, it is stated that basing on the report received from the then Mandal Revenue Officer, Krosuru Mandal, a report was submitted to the Collector (C.S.Wing), Guntur vide R.D.O. Guntur Rc.No.6003/04-B, dated 27.12.2004 for bifurcation of the Fair Price Shop of Yerrabalem Village of Krosuru Mandal, Guntur District and the proposals were accepted and a new Fair Price Shop was sanctioned by bifurcating the existing Fair Price Shop by the Collector and District Magistrate, Guntur with a direction to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Guntur to fill up the vacancy on regular basis. The second respondent would also contend that respondent No.3 – N.Kondala Rao was appointed as Temporary Fair Price Shop dealer in the meantime and the petitioner has filed the W.P.No.7428 of 2005 in the Hon’ble High Court against the orders of the Collector in bifurcating the Fair Price Shop and on hearing of the said writ petition, the Hon’ble High Court passed Interim orders and the same was complied with. The second respondent also contends that the Writ petition was dismissed on 29.04.2008 and the vacancy was notified to the O.C. candidate vide R.D.O.’s Guntur Rc.No.6003/04-B, dated 02.07.2008 and the petitioner has filed a Writ Appeal No.801 of 2008 against the notification issued. The Writ Appeal was dismissed on 19.08.2008 and respondent No.3 was appointed as Fair Price Shop dealer, after due process vide R.D.O. Guntur proceedings Rc.No.6003/04-B dated 03.10.2008. The second respondent would further contend that the petitioner has filed this present Writ petition against the orders of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Guntur in appointing respondent No.3 as Fair Price Shop dealer of the village and this Court had passed the following order on 18.10.2008. “Status Quo obtaining as on today with regard to the arrangement for distribution of Essential Commodities through the Fair Price Shop of the petitioner shall be maintained.” The same order has been received in the office of the second respondent on 30.10.2008 and subsequently, the Tahsildar, Krosuru was directed to implement the orders, vide R.D.O.’s Rc.N.6003/04-B dated 31.10.2008. The Tahsildar, Krosuru, had reported that both the Fair Price Shop Dealers have filed D.Ds. on 21.10.2008 vide Release Orders Nos.20038 and 20039, dated 21.10.2008 and the stocks were lifted by them on 22.10.2008 and the distribution of Essential Commodities was started by them on 01.11.2008 onwards. The said orders have been received in Tahsildar’s Office, Krosuru on 03.11.2008. It is stated in the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent that bifurcation orders were issued on the plea that the Essential Commodities being distributed by the existing dealer are irregular and majority of the cardholders opined that there is need for bifurcation of the Fair Price Shop, as the existing Fair Price Shop is located far away S.C.Colony and most of the OC and BC Cardholders expressed their difficulty in getting the Essential Commodities from such a distance and proposed to create a new Fair Price Shop near Tirupatamma Temple situated in the middle of the village for the convenience of the card holders. Further, it is stated by the second respondent in the counter affidavit that bifurcation proposals submitted to the Collector, Guntur District are based on the report received from the then Mandal Revenue Officer, Krosuru. After disposal of the Writ Petition No.7428 of 2005 dated 29.04.2008, the vacancy was notified on 02.07.2008 as OC category and after due process, the vacancy was filled up by appointing respondent No.3 on regular basis as Fair Price Shop dealer of the village. In Writ Appeal No.801 of 2008 filed by the writ petitioner herein, stay orders were granted only for three weeks on 04.08.2008 and the said orders have been received in the R.D.O. Office, Guntur on 19.08.2008 by RPAD and as such, the time of stay granted by the Court was completed as on 09.09.2008. The Writ Appeal was disposed of on 19.08.2008. The petitioner was continuing as Fair Price Shop dealer till the appointment of the respondent No.3 as on 03.10.2008 for her regular shop and as well as the newly bifurcated shop also. After due process and also after the disposal of the Writ Appeal, the respondent No.3 was appointed as Fair Price Shop dealer of the village on regular basis for the newly created Fair Price Shop only. It is further stated that the respondent NO.3 was appointed on 03.10.2008. Authorisation was issued to him on 11.10.2008. He has filed D.Ds to lift the Essential Commodities on 21.10.2008 vide Release Order No.20039 and lifted the stock on 22.10.2008 and also started the distribution of Essential Commodities from 01.11.2008. The petitioner has also filed the D.D.s lifted the Essential Commodities and also started the distribution of the Essential Commodities same as respondent No.3. It is also stated in the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent that respondent No.3 was appointed as Fair Price Shop dealer on 03.10.2008 and authorization was issued to him on 11.10.2008 and the interim orders passed by the High Court in present Writ petition on 18.10.2008 directing the parties to maintain status quo was as on that day. The said orders have been received in R.D.O.’s Office, Guntur on 30.10.2008 and in Tahsildar’s Office on 03.11.2008. But, respondent No.3 was already appointed as Fair Price Shop dealer of the village on 03.10.2008. The writ petitioner herein has made a representation to Respondent No.1 requesting to issue necessary orders as she has shifted the shop to the house of Vemuri Hanumantha Rao in Door No.8-117 to enable the cardholders to receive the Essential Commodities. The representation was inturn referred to the R.D.O. Guntur by the Collector, Guntur District vide c.No.439/05- S1, dated 20.11.2008 for inspection and report. Consequently, the matter got enquired. On enquiry, it was revealed that the petitioner is maintaining her Fair Price Shop in her own house in Harijanwada in Yerrabalem Village, Krosuru Mandal. The owner of the house Sri Velpuri Hanumantha Rao has stated that the writ petitioner maintained her Fair Price Shop in his house bearing Door No.8-117 of Yerrabalem village, Krosuru Mandal in September, 2008. But some of the cardholders have stated that the petitioner is maintaining the Fair Price Shop in her own house in Harijanawada only. The petitioner has not filed any application about the shifting of the Fair Price Shop. This is the specific stand taken by the second respondent in the counter affidavit. The 3rd respondent has also filed counter affidavit narrating several details and the said details are more or less on the same lines, as specified in the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent referred to above. Reply affidavit has also been filed by the writ petitioner reiterating the stand taken by her in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. It is not in serious controversy that prior writ petition i.e. W.P.No.7428 of 2005 has been dismissed and Writ Appeal No. No.801 of 2008 was disposed of as withdrawn by this Court. However, an observation was made in the said Writ Appeal that if any representation is made by the petitioner, the first respondent – Collector shall look into it and decide the same in accordance with law. In light of the stand taken by the second respondent in the counter affidavit filed by him and especially in view of the details furnished in Paragraph No.5, this Court is of considered opinion that the respondents have complied with the observations made by this Court in Appeal No. No.801 of 2008. In view of the clear stand taken in the counter affidavits filed by respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3, this Court is satisfied that the present Writ Petition is devoid of merits, especially in the light of prior round of litigation between the parties. Hence, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA January 27, 2010 Bvv