HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No.4585 of 2010 Date: June 24, 2010 Between: Nallamothu Nagamani, W/o.Ratnakar, R/o.D.No.8-30, Santhi Nagar, VTPS Post, Ibrahimpatnam village and Mandal, Krishna District … Petitioner And The Joint Collector, Krishna District, and four others … Respondents Order: The writ petition is filed with prayer as under: “For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is hereby prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in notifying the fair price shop dealership of Ibrahimpatnam village, Vijayawada Division in favour of BC candidate i.e. in Sl.No.1 of notification dated A7/2-11-2009 is illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents, re-notify the same fair price shop dealership, Ibrahimpatnam village, Vijayawada Division in favour of SC candidate and pass such other order or orders as are deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.” 2. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it is stated that in Ibrahimpatnam village, Vijayawada Division, there are 7 fair-price shops and out of the said shops shop No.6 was allotted to the father-in-law of the petitioner and after his death to her mother-in-law by name Smt. Bharathi Devi and she continued to hold authorization for the said shop till her death on 03-05-2009. It is stated that, thereafter, the petitioner made an application for allotment of shop No.6 in her favour. At that stage, respondents issued a notification, reserving the said shop in favour of candidates belonging to ‘BC’ community. Challenging the said action of the respondents, this writ petition is filed. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that out of total 7 shops in Ibrahimpatnam village, 4 shops are allotted to forward-class people, 2 shops to backward castes and one shop to scheduled castes till the year 2009. It is the grievance of the petitioner that as her mother-in-law, who was earlier granted authorization for shop No.6, belonged to ‘SC’ community; there is no justification on the part of the respondents in reserving the said shop to candidates belonging to ‘BC’ community. 4. The second respondent, Revenue Divisional Officer, Vijayawada, has filed counter affidavit stating that notification was issued to fill up fair-price shop Nos.5 and 6 of Ibrahimpatnam village by duly reserving the same in favour of ‘OC’ and ‘BC’ communities respectively vide reference No.Rc.A7/315/2009, dated 02-11-2009. It is further stated that one Smt.S.Bharathi Devi, who was holding authorization for shop No.5, died on 03-05-2009; as such, the said shop was notified. The counter affidavit further states that no application can be considered, from the family member of the persons who earlier held authorization, without issuing notification inviting applications. Reference is made to Clause 5(12) of A.P. State Public Distribution System (Control) Order 2008, as per which in the event of the death of the pair price shop dealer, the authorization issued shall stand cancelled and the legal heirs of the deceased are not entitled to transfer of authorization. It is also averred that as per the guidelines issued in G.O.Ms.No.53, Consumer Affairs, Food & Civil Supplies (C.S-I) Department, dated 06-10-2003, 25% of the vacancies are reserved for candidates belonging to ‘BC’ community. It is also stated that in Vijayawada Division there are 528 fair-price shops; as such 132 shops are reserved to ‘BC’ community and as the existing shops are only 130 in number, to fill-up the shortfall, shop No.6 was reserved for candidates belonging to ‘BC’ community. It is also stated that, in the selections made to shop No.6, as the fourth respondent herein secured higher marks, she was selected and appointed as fair-price shop dealer for the said shop. 5. In this writ petition, the petitioner questions the action of the respondents in reserving shop No.6 of Ibrahimpatnam village, Vijayawada Division, in favour of candidates belonging to ‘BC’ community. As much as, consequent to the notification issued by the respondents, fourth respondent is selected and appointed to the shop in question, no relief, as sought, can be granted at this stage. Further, the respondents, in the counter affidavit stated valid reasons for reserving the shop in question in favour of candidates belonging to ‘BC’ community. Merely because the mother-in-law of the petitioner was holding authorization for the shop in question during her lifetime, the same will not confer any right on the petitioner for being granted authorization for the said shop. It is to be seen that as per Clause 5(12) of A.P. State Public Distribution System (Control) Order 2008, in the event of the death of the pair price shop dealer, the authorization issued shall stand cancelled and the legal heirs of the deceased are not entitled to transfer of authorization. It is further to be noted that, as detailed in the counter affidavit, as per the guidelines issued in G.O.Ms.No.53, Consumer Affairs, Food & Civil Supplies (C.S-I) Department, dated 06-10-2003, 25% of the vacancies are reserved for candidates belonging to ‘BC’ community. It is also stated that in Vijayawada Division there are 528 fair-price shops; as such 132 shops are reserved to ‘BC’ community and as the existing shops are only 130 in number, to fill-up the shortfall, shop No.6 was reserved for candidates belonging to ‘BC’ community. 6. For the foregoing reasons, the petitioner cannot be granted the relief prayed for. 7. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed, however, in the circumstances, without any order as to costs. However, as it is stated that aggrieved of the authorization given to the fourth respondent for the shop in question the petitioner has filed an appeal before the Joint Collector, there shall be a direction to the first respondent-Joint Collector, Krishna District, to consider the appeal, if any, filed by the petitioner, and pass appropriate orders as expeditiously as possible. ______________________ (R. SUBHASH REDDY, J) June 24, 2010 MRR