THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION No. 11030 of 2010 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking issuance of writ of mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in not allotting the shop No.6 in Goodwill Shopping Complex, Vinukonda, Guntur District, which was reserved for the handicapped, to the petitioner, as arbitrary, violative of fundamental rights and consequently direct the respondents to allot the shop No.6, in Goodwill Complex, Opp.MDO Office, Vinukonda, Guntur District, to the petitioner. The brief facts which are necessary for disposal of the writ petition are as follows: The petitioner is the victim of cerebral palsy with 90% disability, since childhood, and does not have any specific source of income. The petitioner made an application dated 23.04.2010, addressed to the Government of Andhra Pradesh for allotment Shop No.6 in the Goodwill Shopping Complex, constructed by the Government, at Vinukonda. The petitioner enclosed medical certificate as the said Shop No.6 was earmarked for handicapped persons. It is alleged that the respondents are not following due process of allotment of the said shop, and when the petitioner approached the respondents, they are giving evasive replies. Hence, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. The 4th respondent filed counter stating that the Vinukonda Municipality has constructed commercial complex in Sy.No.390/A-1A situated opposite to the Mandal Parishad Office. Out of a total 45 shops, 13 shops are reserved for SC, ST, Physically Challenged and Nai Brahmin and Washerman cooperative societies as per Government Orders in force. Shop No.6 is reserved for Physically challenged people. The District Collector constituted a District Level Committee to take decision in this regard. It is submitted that a total of 6 persons, including the petitioner, applied for allotment of Shop No.6. It is further submitted that it is not correct that the District Level Committee, headed by the District Collector, will take decision to allot the shop under Physically Challenged person quota in consultation with the Assistant Director, Disabled Welfare Officer, Guntur. It is further submitted that the petitioner is already holding lease of Shop No.15 in Mahatma Gandhi Municipal Shopping Complex from May 2007 to 31.03.2013 and running business, apart from having properties like buildings and educational institutions etc. The unofficial respondent, who got himself impleaded, stated that by virtue of a resolution by the municipality, the shop No.6 was allotted to him basing on the allotment made by the District Level Committee and, in pursuance of that allotment, he paid an amount of Rs.1 lakh towards Goodwill, and therefore, he prays to dismiss the petition. On the other hand the 4th respondent filed counter affidavit stating that the allotment of shops is on the basis of recommendations made by the District Level Committee, and basing on the recommendations the municipal council passed a resolution allotting the shops. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is a 90% physically handicapped person and, therefore, the shop No.6 in Goodwill Shopping Complex has to be allotted to him and without conducting any auction, and that he made representation and therefore, he prays to issue direction to the respondents to allot the shop No.6 to him. It is not in dispute before this Court that the petitioner was given lease in respect of shop No.15 in Mahatma Gandhi Municipal Shopping Complex, for a period from 2007 to 2013 and therefore, when he is already having a shop in which he is running a business, the question of allotting another shop i.e. shop No.6, to him does not arise. Basing on the resolution of the municipal council, in pursuance of the decision taken by the District Level Committee, the shop No.6 has been allotted to the 5th respondent. Therefore, the prayer sought for cannot be issued in view of the fact that there was no challenge to the municipal council resolution in allotting the shop No.6 to the 5th respondent. The writ petition is devoid of merits, and is accordingly dismissed. However, it is left open to the petitioner to avail remedies available under law. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ JUSTICE K.C. BHANU 08th December, 2011 KSM