IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 16197 of 2008 Between: Smt. P. Anitha W/o P. Linga Reddy R/o Nandharikhanpet Village, Hamlt of Damarlapally Grampanchayat, Shabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, at: lakadikapool, Hyderabad. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division, At: Attapur Ranga Reddy District. 3 The Tahsildar Shabad mandal, Ranga Reddy Dsitrict. 4 The Commissioner of Civil Supplies, Government of Andhra Prasesh, Hyderabad. 5 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its Secrtary, Civil Supplies Department, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or writs, order or orders setting a side the order, dated 09-07-2008 with Ref. No. A5/812/2007 of the 1st respondent and pass such other and further order or orders Counsel for the Petitioner : MR. RESU MAHENDER REDDY Counsel for the Respondents : GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI W.P.No.16197 of 2008 ORDER The petitioner herein is the authorized dealer of the fair price shop of Damarlapally Village. This writ petition is ﬁled aggrieved by the order passed by the 1st respondent-District Collector dated. 09-07-2008 thereby creating a new fair price shop at Lingareddyguda by bifurcating the cards attached to the petitioner’s shop. It is primarily contended by the petitioner that the impugned bifurcation is contrary to the guidelines issued under G.O.Ms.No.35, dated.17-09-2007 under which so far as the rural areas are concerned, it is necessary to ensure minimum 400 BPL (Below Poverty Line) cards and 50 APL (Above poverty Line) cards to each fair price shop. It is also contended that the impugned order, which was passed without any notice to the petitioner to make her representation, is arbitrary illegal and in violation of principles of natural justice. In the counter-aﬃdavit ﬁled on behalf of the 1st respondent, the fact that no notice was issued to the petitioner before passing the impugned order is not disputed. Similarly, the fact that by virtue of the impugned bifurcation the cards attached to the petitioner’s shop would be reduced less than minimum cards of 400 BPL and 50 APL as provided under G.O.Ms.No.35, dated 17.09.2007 is also not disputed. However, it is contended that the impugned bifurcation was made to avoid inconvenience to 164 Cardholders belonging to Lingareddyguda Village which is situated 3 K.M away from the petitioner’s shop. It is also contended that the convenience and interest of the consumers is paramount as per the policy of the Government and therefore the impugned action cannot be held to be arbitrary or illegal. Heard the learned for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for the respondents. The learned counsel for the petitioner while submitting that Lingareddyguda village is only at a distance of half a Kilometer from Damarlapally Village, vehemently contended that the plea of the respondents that the impugned bifurcation is only in the interest of the consumers is absolutely incorrect. It is also pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner’s fair price shop is actually located at Nandharikhanpet Village which is a hamlet of Damarlapally Grampanchayat, from which the newly created shop would be at a distance of half-a-kilometer. On the other hand the learned Government Pleader while reiterating the stand taken in the counter-aﬃdavit further contended that as against the impugned order since an alternative remedy of appeal is available before the Director of Civil Supplies, the present writ petition cannot be maintained without exhausting such alternative remedy. While placing reliance upon a decision of Supreme Court in 2000(1) ALD 9 (S.C.) the learned Government Pleader also contended that the authorized dealer cannot claim any opportunity of making representation before effecting bifurcation. It is true that the convenience and interest of the consumers is paramount and no dealer can claim a right to hold a speciﬁc number of cards. Having regard to the said well settled principle, the Supreme Court in the above decision held that the order of bifurcation cannot be held to be bad merely on the ground that there was no notice to the aggrieved dealer. However, in the instant case the cards left with the petitioner’s shop after bifurcation are admittedly less than the minimum cards prescribed under G.O.Ms.No.35 dated. 17-09-2007. The only ground on which the impugned bifurcation is sought to be justiﬁed by the respondents is the convenience of 164 cardholders who are residents of Lingareddyguda village, which according to the respondents is at a distance of 3 k.m from the existing fair price shop. The petitioner disputes the said plea and contends that actually the petitioner’s shop is located at Nandharikhanpet from which Lingareddyguda village is at a distance of only half a Kilometer. Thus there is a dispute with regard to the distance between the existing shop and the proposed shop. In the circumstances, I am of the opinion that this is a ﬁt case where the petitioner should be given an opportunity to make her representation before eﬀecting the impugned bifurcation. Since no such opportunity was given to the petitioner the impugned order being in violation of principles of natural justice, the availability of the alternative remedy of appeal is not a bar to maintain this writ petition. Accordingly the impugned order dated.09-07-2008 is set aside and the petitioner is permitted to raise his objections against the proposed bifurcation and creation of new shop at Lingareddyguda village within a period of four (4) weeks from today. If any such objections are received within the time prescribed above, the 1st respondent shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law after conducting necessary enquiry with regard to the distance between the existing shop and the proposed shop. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. ____________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt.29.09.2008 *TSNR Note:- Cc in one week. (B/O) ghn