THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO W.A.M.P.Nos.2717 and 2908 of 2008 in/and Writ Appeal No.660 of 2008, W.P.M.P.No.31283 of 2008 in/and Writ Petition No.24007 of 2008 and W.P.M.P.No.30232 of 2008 and W.V.M.P.No.140 of 2009 in/and Writ Petition No.14600 of 2008 Date: 07-4-2010 Writ Appeal No.660 of 2008: Between Lakkaraju Raj Kumar and 10 others … Appellants/Petitioners and The District Collector, Warangal, Warangal district and 5 others … Respondents/Respondents Writ Petition No.24007 of 2008: Between Potharaju Ramesh … Petitioner and The District Collector, Warangal and 3 others … Respondents Writ Petition No.14600 of 2008: Between Smt. A.Sunitha and 4 others … Petitioners and The District Collector, Warangal, District: Warangal and 3 others … Respondents THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO W.A.M.P.Nos.2717 and 2908 of 2008 in/and Writ Appeal No.660 of 2008, W.P.M.P.No.31283 of 2008 in/and Writ Petition No.24007 of 2008 and W.P.M.P.No.30232 of 2008 and W.V.M.P.No.140 of 2009 in/and Writ Petition No.14600 of 2008 Oral Common Judgment: (per D.S.R.Varma, J.) Though the above matters are at the interlocutory stage, at the instance of some of the petitioners seeking impleadment as party respondents to the writ appeal, since the question involved being common and incidentally we have to necessarily enter into the merits of the case, we propose to dispose of the main writ appeal and the two writ petitions by this common judgment. 2. The writ appeal is directed against the order dated 18-6-2008 in W.P.No.12615 of 2008 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court. The two writ petitions are filed challenging the common order dated 10-6-2008 passed by the District Collector, Warangal, whereby the common order dated 26-12-2007 passed by the Joint Collector, Warangal was confirmed. These two writ petitions are squarely covered by the impugned order passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.12615 of 2008. 3. It appears that the Revenue Divisional Officer, Warangal issued notifications on 10-10-2007 calling for applications from eligible candidates for grant of authorisation to run fair price shops. As a consequence thereto, some applications have been made and the applicants were subjected to written test and oral interview and a provisional selection list also was prepared on 06-11-2007 and the appellants in the writ appeal are the successful candidates. Challenging the said selection and the notifications issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Warangal, appeals were filed before the Joint Collector, Warangal and the Joint Collector, Warangal, having regard to the batch of appeals filed before him, had gone into the merits of all cases including the cases of the appellants in the writ appeal and found that there are certain infirmities in the very notifications issued on 10-10-2007 and eventually set aside the notifications and the consequential selections. Aggrieved thereby, a batch of revisions has been filed before the District Collector, Warangal, who confirmed the orders passed by the Joint Collector, Warangal. Hence, the writ petitions. 4. The learned single Judge of this court after considering the merits of the case in W.P.No.12615 of 2008, eventually found no infirmity or any illegality calling for interference by this court and accordingly dismissed the said writ petition. Aggrieved thereby, the writ appeal had been filed. 5. The two writ petitions W.P.Nos.24007 and 14600 of 2008 are on the same facts with no material change in any respect and hence, they are squarely covered by the order dated 18-6-2008 in W.P.No.12615 of 2008 passed by the learned single Judge of this court. Hence, all these matters are being disposed of by this common judgment. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the petitioners and also the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. 7. The learned counsel for the appellants and the petitioners firstly contended that respondent No.4 herein, who originally filed an appeal before the Joint Collector, Warangal, has no locus standi to file the appeal. He turned out to be an unsuccessful candidate, having participated in the selection process, that too in respect of only one shop. It is contended that therefore, he has no locus standi to question the other selections pursuant to the notifications dated 10-10-2007. 8. It is further brought to the notice of this court that he does not belong to either of the Scheduled Tribes or Physically Handicapped categories. Therefore, it is the serious contention that he cannot ask for setting aside the entire selection on the ground of reservation. 9. At this juncture, it is to be noticed that both the appellate and the revisional authorities i.e., the Joint Collector, Warangal and the District Collector, Warangal, have noticed in the respective batches of appeals and revisions that the notifications were vitiated on account of non specification of the fair price shops that are intended/reserved for the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Backward Classes, Physically Handicapped, Women etc., so as to enable only eligible categories to apply. It is further pointed out that the percentage of reservation to such categories is postulated by the policy of the Government of Andhra Pradesh set out in G.O.Ms.No.53 CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES (CS.1) DEPARTMENT, dated 06-10-2003. 10. Therefore, having regard to the said infirmities, it appears that both the appellate and the revisional authorities were of the view that the selections, which were made contrary to G.O.Ms.No.53 dated 06-10-2003, cannot be reversed or modified in any other manner, except by way of setting aside the very notifications. The only alternative suggested was -- to issue fresh notification and go for fresh selections as per G.O.Ms.No.53 dated 06-10-2003. 11. Regarding the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants as well as the petitioners that respondent No.4 herein, who initially approached the appellate authority, cannot challenge regarding the selections of others or the notification as a whole, we are of the considered view that this contention cannot be countenanced for the simple reason that the appellants and the petitioners are not the only people, who approached the appellate and the revisional authorities. 12. From the record, it appears that though only one appeal was filed, from the order passed by the Joint Collector it appears that a batch of petitions has been admitted on record as appeal, which indicates that there were grievances ventilated by the others also before the appellate authority and all those grievances have been considered by him in the appeal filed by the appellants herein. 13. Even otherwise, there is no express prohibition under the law or under the G.O., prohibiting the appellate authority from going into the merits of the case, particularly when certain infirmities have been brought to the notice of the authority with regard to the notification, which results in illegal selections or allotments of the fair price shops. 14. Therefore, we are of the view that there is apparently no error on the part of the appellate authority and the revisional authority in pointing out the infirmities in the very notification itself since the selections cannot be reversed in any other way than the one ordered by them by directing the issuance of fresh notification. 15. It is the next contention of the learned counsel for the appellants and the petitioners that division is the unit for the purpose of calling out the reservations. 16. So far as this proposition is concerned, it is totally unexceptionable. 17. The learned counsel further points out that there is excess allotments in various categories made earlier to this notification. 18. But, it is to be noted in this regard that the irregularities that are being pointed out now are pertaining prior to the disputed notification. This court cannot go into the history and set at naught the whole process that went on, particularly prior to the present controversial notification. It is for the appropriate authorities to take up any corrective measures as deemed fit. On that ground, this court cannot interfere with the orders passed by the learned single Judge of this Court. 19. Furthermore, the core issue before the learned single Judge was -- as regards the orders of the appellate and the revisional authorities in setting aside the notification dated 10-10-2007 as violative of the policy set out in G.O.Ms.No.53, dated 06-10-2003. 20. Merely because some appellants or the petitioners were selected in the recent selection process pursuant to the notification dated 10-10-2007, that does not confer any indefeasible right, particularly when the very notification was found to be irregular and faulty, on the grounds that were already pointed out by the appellate and the revisional authorities, which were confirmed the learned single Judge of this Court, it is inexpedient for this court to re-examine the whole exercise that has been undertaken by the said authorities. 21. It is further pointed out by the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for respondents 1 to 3 that pursuant to the order rendered by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.12615 of 2008, a fresh notification has already been issued but the same could not be proceeded with, owing to the interim directions passed by this court. 22. For the aforementioned reasons, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the learned single Judge calling for interference by this court. 23. In the result, the writ appeal and the writ petitions are accordingly dismissed. No costs. 24. The interim orders granted by this court in W.A.No.660 of 2008 dated 09-7-2008, in W.A.M.P.No.1394 of 2008 in W.A.No.660 of 2008 dated 15-9-2008, in W.P.M.P.No.31283 of 2008 in W.P.No.24007 of 2008 dated 04-11-2008, in W.P.M.P.No.18843 of 2008 in W.P.No.14600 of 2008 dated 29-7- 2008 and in W.P.M.P.No.30232 of 2008 in W.P.No.14600 of 2008 dated 23-10-2008 shall stand vacated. W.A.M.P.Nos.2717 and 2908 of 2008 in W.A.No.660 of 2008: 25. In view of the final orders passed dismissing the writ appeal and the writ petitions, no further orders need be passed in these miscellaneous petitions seeking for impleadment of the proposed respondents as party respondents and accordingly, the same are dismissed. __________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA ___________________ JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO 07th April, 2010. Ak THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO W.A.M.P.Nos.2717 and 2908 of 2008 in/and Writ Appeal No.660 of 2008, W.P.M.P.No.31283 of 2008 in/and Writ Petition No.24007 of 2008 and W.P.M.P.No.30232 of 2008 and W.V.M.P.No.140 of 2009 in/and Writ Petition No.14600 of 2008 (Common Judgment of the Division Bench delivered by DSRV, J.) 07th April, 2010. (Ak)