THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.1036 OF 2009 DATED:29.03.2010 Between: K.Venkataiah and others .. Petitioners And The Government of Andhra Pradesh rep., by its Commissioner (Civil Supplies), Ex-Officio Secretary to Government of Andhra Pradesh, Civil Supplies Bhavan, Yerramanzil, Hyderabad And another .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.1036 OF 2009 ORDER: The petitioners who are 35 in number are Fair Price Shop (FPS) dealers in the city of Hyderabad. They made a representation to the Government (Hon’ble the Chief Minister) on 21.08.2008 requesting to enhance the allotment of White cards to each shop at least from 1250 to 1500. As there is no response, after waiting for about five months, they filed the instant Writ Petition seeking a direction to consider their representation. The second respondent filed a detailed counter, inter alia, stating that the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.35, dated 17.09.2007 for the purpose of Public Distribution System (PDS) rationalization of FPSs in Hyderabad city and districts and that for the existing 650 BPL cards, each shop would fetch an income of Rs.7,826/- for each card dealer and that unless and until as there is a policy change they cannot be increased to 1200. This Court, with the Assistance of the learned counsel, has perused G.O.Ms.No.35, dated 17.09.2007. After taking into consideration various aspects of the matter, the Government issued the following guidelines for the purpose of rationalization of FPSs. (i) Hyderabad city if the cards of the existing fair price Shop is more than the minimum of 600 cards (white/AAY/AP/crippled weavers) and 400 Pink cards, the excess number of cards of such fair price shop shall be transferred to a new fair price shop to be located in the same locality. (ii) Opening of a fair price shop with in one kilometer radius of the residence of the card holder shall be scrupulously followed. (iii) In Municipalities/erstwhile taluk head quarters (urban), each fair price shop should have a minimum of 500 BPL cards. (iv) In Mandal head quarters each fair price shop should have a minimum of 500 BPL cards and 250 Pink cards. Keeping in view the guidelines already issued, new fair price shops can be opened basing on the need. (v) Rural areas - each Gram Panchayat (v) should have at least one Fair Price shop with a minimum of 400 BPL cards and 50 APL cards. In case, there are more number of cards in excess of the minimum number of cards i.e. 400 BPL and 50 APL in a Village there can be two FP Shops, provided the total number of BPL cards in that Village is not less than 600 and the number of BPL and APL cards should be attached to the two Fair Price Shops equally. In view of the Government Order read above, the petitioners may not have any right again to seek a review of the policy. Indeed, the Supreme Court in District Collector v B. Suresh[1] held as under. Under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Commodities (Regulation of Distribution by Card System) Order, 1973, which order has been framed under the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 a Fair Price Shop Dealer has no right to be appointed as such dealer. The licence which such dealer has obtained under the provisions of the Act to deal with the commodities has not been cancelled. The right to trade under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India is not being affected in any manner. The Government, as a policy decision, decided to reduce the number of cards per dealer. Such decision does not affect the rights, if any, of the Fair Price Shop Dealer and as such the High Court was in error to hold that they were to be given any notice prior to the impugned decision of the State Government. In view of the above, no purpose would be served by directing the Government to review the policy. Indeed, in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court cannot issue a Mandamus to the Government to alter or change the policy. Though in appropriate cases, the policy, which is arbitrary can be invalidated. The Writ Petition, with the above reasons, is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ (V.V.S. RAO, J) 29.03.2010 KH [1] 2000 (1) ALD 9 (SC)