*THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI + WRIT PETITION No.11045 OF 2008 % 14/10/2008 # T. Ramanjaneyulu … Petitioner Vs. $ 1. The State of A.P., represented. by its Principal Secretary, Civil Supplies Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad., and two others. .. Respondents < Gist > Head Note: ! Counsel for the petitioner : Sri K. Jaganmohan Reddy ^ Counsel for the respondents : G.P. for Civil Supplies Cases referred : [1] 2000 (1) ALD 9 (SC) THE HON’BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI W.P.No.11045 of 2008 ORDER The petitioner herein is the authorized dealer of the fair price shop of Ramapuram Village, Bathalapalli Mandal, Anantapur District. This writ petition is ﬁled seeking a Mandamus declaring that the notiﬁcation dated.09-05-2008 issued by the 2nd respondent-Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer inviting applications for appointment of a dealer for the shop No.2 of Ramapuram village, which is newly created by bifurcating the cards attached to the existing shop of Ramapuram Village, in respect of which the petitioner is the authorized dealer, as arbitrary and illegal . The petitioner alleges that there was no notice to him before eﬀecting the bifurcation and even the order of bifurcation was not communicated to him. It is pleaded that he came to know about the bifurcation only when the impugned notiﬁcation was issued inviting applications for appointment of a dealer to the newly created shop. It is also the case of the petitioner that there are only 300 white cards and 16 AAY cards in Ramapuram Village, which are much less than the minimum cards prescribed under G.O.Ms.No.35 dated. 17-09-2007 and therefore there is no need for creation of a new shop. Thus, the petitioner seeks a declaration that the entire action of the respondents is arbitrary and illegal, apart from being in violation of principles of natural justice. In the counter-aﬃdavit ﬁled by the Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer, it is stated that a new fair price shop at Ramapuram village was sanctioned vide proceedings of the District Collector, Anantapur dated.31-03-2008 duly bifurcating existing fair price shop. In pursuance of the same, following the guidelines issued in G.O.Ms.No.53, dated. 06-10-2003 the said newly created shop is reserved for “B.C.Women” and a notiﬁcation dated.09-05-2008 was issued inviting applications from eligible candidates. It is further explained that the Tahasildar, Bathalapalli after conducting an enquiry reported that there are two groups belonging to two diﬀerent political parties in Ramapuram Village who are quarreling with each other very often. It is also reported that the petitioner is supporting the members belonging to one of the groups and thus 149 cardholders are enimical to the petitioner and they are not receiving the commodities from the month of November-2006 onwards. On account of the clashes between the two groups Cr.No.110 of 2003 was also lodged and the same is pending in the Court. The said 149 cardholders who are not receiving their commodities requested to create a separate shop and keeping in view the rivalry prevailing between the two groups the Tahasildar recommended for creation of a new shop. On the basis of the said recommendation, the District Collector who is the competent authority sanctioned a new shop at Ramapuram Village. Heard the learned counsel for the both parties and perused the material on record. The learned counsel for the petitioner while refuting the allegation that there are two groups in the village contended that even Cr.No.110 of 2003 which related to a post election dispute of a Panchayat election held in the year 2002, was closed as a “false case” long ago. It is also contended that the bifurcation was made under political pressure and to favour one Smt. K.Bhagyamma by appointing her as dealer of newly created shop. On the other hand the learned Government Pleader while reiterating the stand taken in the counter-aﬃdavit contended that the bifurcation, which was effected in the interest of public and to avoid law and order problem in the Village, warrants no interference. While relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND ANOTHER v. B. SURESH[1] the Government Pleader also contended that the petitioner is not entitled to any notice before eﬀecting the bifurcation. In DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND ANOTEHR v. B. SURESH (1 supra) it was held by the Supreme Court that a fair price shop dealer has no right to be appointed as such dealer and that the right to trade under Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India is not being eﬀected in any manner by virtue of bifurcation. It was also held that the policy decision of the Government to reduce the number of cards for dealer does not aﬀect the rights, if any, of the fair price shop dealers and as such they cannot claim a right to notice before eﬀecting bifurcation. There can be no dispute about the ratio laid down in the above decision. However, it is relevant to note that under G.O.Ms.No.35, dated.17-09-2007 the Government ﬁxed the minimum number of cards to be maintained with each fair price shop, keeping in view not only the convenience of the cardholders but also the viability of the fair price shops. Notwithstanding the minimum cards so prescribed, the District Collector, who is the competent authority for sanctioning the new shops, may in appropriate cases, to avoid inconvenience to the cardholders or to avoid any law and order problem in the village, eﬀect bifurcation of the existing shops. Since the convenience and interest of the consumers is paramount consideration in the Public Distribution System, such discretion exercised by the District Collector cannot be held to be bad merely on the ground that the existing dealer is left with less than the minimum number of cards prescribed under G.O.Ms.No.35, dt. 17-09-2007. However, before eﬀecting bifurcation on such grounds, the principles of natural justice require giving an opportunity to the existing dealer to make his representation with regard to the ground on which the bifurcation is proposed. Where the cards attached to a particular shop exceeded the minimum number of cards prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.35 dated. 17-09-2007, probably it is open to the District Collector to eﬀect bifurcation without notice to the existing dealer. However, when the bifurcation is sought to be eﬀected on any other ground, the existing dealer is entitled to a prior notice informing him the said grounds and calling upon him to show cause as to why the cards attached to his shop should not be reduced so as to create a new shop. In the instant case admittedly there was no notice to the petitioner before eﬀecting the bifurcation and even a copy of the order of bifurcation was not served on him. It is also not in dispute that the cards attached to the petitioner’s shop are less than the minimum number of cards prescribed under G.O.Ms.No.35 dated.17-09- 2007. According to the respondents the bifurcation was eﬀected in view of the disputes prevailing between two groups among the villagers and to avoid law and order problem. It is also alleged by the respondents that the petitioner was supporting one of the groups and 149 cardholders belonging to other group were not receiving the essential commodities from November 2006 onwards and they requested for creation of a new shop. In the circumstances, the District Collector ought not to have ordered bifurcation without aﬀording an opportunity to the petitioner to rebut the allegations against him on the basis of which the bifurcation was proposed. It is also relevant to note that whereas a remedy of appeal is provided to the Director of Civil Supplies against an order of bifurcation, the petitioner is denied such remedy since the order of bifurcation was not even communicated to him. For the aforesaid reasons the bifurcation of petitioner’s shop and creation of a new shop is arbitrary and illegal. Consequently the impugned notiﬁcation inviting applications for appointment of a dealer to the newly created shop is liable to be set aside. The writ petition is accordingly allowed setting aside the order of bifurcation dated.31-03-2008 passed by the District Collector, Anantapur as well as the impugned notiﬁcation dated.09-05-2008. However, this order shall not preclude the respondents to initiate fresh proceedings for bifurcation following due process of law in the light of the observations made above. No order as to costs. ____________ G.ROHINI,J 14th October 2008 Note: LR copy to be marked: Yes (B/O) *TSNR/gbs [1] 2000 (1) ALD 9 (SC)