IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.5251 of 2008 Between: Sri Bharothu Nageswara Rao S/o. Balaji, Krishna Rao Palem Village, A.Kondur Mandal, Krishna District. ...PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, Krishna District, At: Machilipatnam, Krishna District. 2 The Joint Collector, Krishna District. At : Machilipatnam, Krishna District. 3 The Revenue Divisional Officer, A.Konduru Mandal at Nuzivid, Krishna District. 4 Sri Bharothu Peekala S/o. Parengiya, Krishna Rao Palem Villege, A.Kondur Mandal, Krishna District. ..RESPONDENTS 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 direction or order more particularly one in the nature of writ of Certiorari calling for the records in the proceedings of the first respondent bearing No.B1 / RP / 03 / 08 and 04 / 08 dated 1.3.2008, confirming the order of the second respondent in Rc.B1 / SRA / 27 / 2006 dated 7.1.2008 and quash the same as being illegal, contrary to law vitiated by errors apparent on the face of the record. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.M.V.DURGA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 3: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES Counsel for the Respondent 4: Mr.KOWTURU VINAY KUMAR The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.5251 of 2008 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of Certiorari to quash proceedings dated 01.03.2008 of respondent No.1 whereby, he confirmed order dated 07.01.2008 passed by respondent No.2. In response to notification issued for filling up the dealership of Krishna Rao Palem Village of A.Konduru Mandal, the petitioner along with four other candidates applied. On the basis of the interview conducted on 04.09.2006, respondent No.3 selected and appointed the petitioner as Fair Price Shop Dealer. Respondent No.4 filed an appeal before respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 by his order dated 07.01.2008, while holding that the petitioner, who was the beneficiary of a self employment scheme, was barred from being considered for appointment as Fair Price Shop Dealer under G.O.Ms.No.53 dated 06.10.2003, also held that in view of the involvement of respondent No.4 in a criminal case registered in crime No.36 of 2004 of A.Konduru Police Station, he was also ineligible for being considered under the same G.O. On this premise, respondent No.2 directed to re-notify the vacancy by calling for fresh applications for filling up the same. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, both the petitioner and respondent No.4 filed revision petitions before respondent No.1. The said respondent, by order dated 01.03.2008, dismissed the same while affirming the order passed by respondent No.2 in appeal. The petitioner filed this Writ Petition questioning the orders of respondent Nos.3 and 2 in the revision and the appeal respectively while respondent No.4 has not questioned the said order so far. Heard Sri M.V.Durga Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Sri Kowturu Vinay Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No.4 and perused the record. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as on the date of the interview, his client cleared off the entire loan amount and subsequent to his appointment, he has paid even the subsidy amount. He, therefore, submitted that he was not rendered ineligible for being considered and appointed as Fair Price Shop Dealer. Respondent No.2, in his order, took note of the fact that under G.O.Ms.No.53 dated 06.10.2003, an unemployed person shall be eligible for appointment as Fair Price Shop Dealer. Under para 12 clause XVII of G.O.Ms.No.53 dated 06.10.2003, candidates who have already been benefited under the Government Schemes such as Gramodaya Pathakam, Khadi and Village IndustriesBoard etc., are not being considered and appointed as Fair Price Shop Dealers. He has also observed that the petitioner was sanctioned loan under self employment scheme called Rajiv Yuva Shakthi Scheme and had taken loan from Kanakadurga Grameena Bank, Cheemalapadu Village, A.Konduru Mandal in addition to the subsidy made available under the said Scheme and that he closed his business on 21.08.2006, obtained No Due Certificate from the bank on 02.09.2006 and attended the interview on 04.09.2006. He, therefore, presumed that the haste in which the petitioner closed his loan account was only with an intention to render himself eligible and on this reasoning, respondent No.2 set aside the appointment of the petitioner. Respondent No.1, who dealt with the revision in detail, also concurred with the view of respondent No.2. He further observed that since the petitioner cleared the subsidy amount, after his appointment, he made himself eligible for applying as and when a fresh notification is issued. Having considered the submission that since on the date of interview, the petitioner cleared the loan amount and respondent Nos.2 and 3 ought not to have held that the petitioner was not eligible for consideration and appointment as Fair Price Shop Dealer, I do not feel inclined to accept the same. The intendment behind rendering the persons who are the beneficiaries in other Schemes ineligible for being appointed as Fair Price Shop Dealers was evidently to prevent a person from receiving benefits through multiple sources. Admittedly, as on the date of notification issued calling for applications for appointment of Fair Price Shop Dealer of the said shop, the petitioner was running his business under the Self Employment Scheme. Just four days before interview was scheduled to take place, he closed the business and two days before the scheduled date of interviews, he paid back the dues. On these admitted facts, respondent Nos.2 and 3 are justified in drawing the presumption that in order to overcome the disqualification contained in G.O.Ms.No.53 dated 06.10.2003, the petitioner closed his business and has repaid the loan amount. In the absence of any cut-off date stipulated, the date of notification is required to be taken as cut-off date. Otherwise, the very purpose for which para 12 of clause XVII of G.O.Ms.No.53 is envisaged will be rendered otiose by persons who are enjoying self employment scheme by closing their loans on knowing of notification calling for applications for appointment of Fair Price Shop Dealers. In this view of the matter, I do not find any illegality in the orders passed by respondent Nos.2 and 3 in holding that the petitioner is not eligible for being considered for Fair Price Shop Dealership. Since respondent No.1 held that the petitioner is eligible for being considered under a fresh notification, which was directed to be issued, he cannot have any legitimate grievance. As far as respondent No.4 is concerned, he was disqualified on the ground that he was involved in a criminal case. Though he filed a revision petition against the order of respondent No.2, he has not questioned the order of respondent No.1. Though Sri Kowturu Vinay Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No.4, submitted at the hearing that his client was acquitted in the said criminal case, I am not inclined to go into the said aspect in the Writ Petition filed by the petitioner as respondent No.4 failed to question the order passed by respondent No.1. Whether respondent No.4 is eligible to apply in pursuance of the fresh notification to be issued or not is left open to be decided in future as and when respondent No.4 questions the order of respondent No.1 With the above observations, the Writ Petition is dismissed. Since the petitioner claims to have been distributing the essential commodities as on today, I am of the view that interest of justice would be served if he is continued as Fair Price Shop Dealer purely as a temporary measure till the vacancy is filled up through a fresh notification to be issued as directed by respondent Nos.1 and 2. It is made clear that his continuance as Fair Price Shop Dealer shall not be taken into consideration while evaluating the relative claims of the applicants including the petitioner in the fresh selections to be made in future. _______________________ (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) 17th March 2008 RRB Copy To: 1 The District Collector, Krishna District, At: Machilipatnam, Krishna District. 2 The Joint Collector, Krishna District. At : Machilipatnam, Krishna District. 3 The Revenue Divisional Officer, A.Konduru Mandal at Nuzivid, Krishna District. 4 2CCs to GP for Civil Supplies, High Court Buildings (OUT). 5 2CD copies.