THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI W.P.No.30844 of 2011 Between: 1. Kuraba Nanjundappa and another. PETITIONERS And 1. The District Collector, Ananthapur, Ananthapur District, and others. RESPONDENS ORDER: Petitioners are cardholders. They have challenged the notification issued by the 1st respondent-District Collector, Ananthapur, dated 3.08.2011 bifurcating the existing fair price shop, and consequential notification dated 1.11.2011 calling for applications to fill up the vacancy. Originally, the fair price shop was located at Nalluru Village. Cardholders from Nalluru S.C Colony, Kallukunta were attached to the said shop. In view of the difficulties faced by the cardholders of Nalluru S.C Colony, which is at a distance of 1 ½ km., the Revenue Divisional Officer, Penugonda submitted a proposal dated 8.6.2011 to the District Collector for creating a new shop at Nalluru S.C. Colony by detaching the cards from Nalluru fair price shop. On a consideration of the proposal, the 1st respondent passed orders dated 3.08.2011 bifurcating the existing shop and by locating the new shop at Nalluru S.C. Colony. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contend that the proposal is contrary to the guidelines issued in G.O.Ms.No.35, dated 17.09.2007 wherein it was prescribed that a fair price shop in the rural areas should be attached with a minimum of 400 to 450 BPL and 50 pink cards and at any rate the cards shall not be less than 300. It is also contended that the newly created shop is located at a distance of 2 ½ kms., and therefore is not convenient to the cardholders. I am not inclined to accept the aforesaid contentions. Firstly, the petitioners are only cardholders who cannot have any legitimate grievance so long as supply of commodities is not denied to them. It should not matter to them whether they draw from ‘X’ shop or ‘Y’ shop. Guidelines are issued in G.O.Ms.No.35 dated 17.09.2007 in order to ensure viability of the shops, which is the concern of the dealer. The petitioners, who are cardholders, cannot by any comprehension have any objection in the matter. The learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of arguments submits that Kallukunta village, to which the petitioners belong, is at a distance of 0.75 kms., from Nalluru village. Thus the petitioners have to travel a longer distance to the new shop, which fact may be true. But in the rural areas, particularly with hamlets, it is not always possible to adhere to the distance uniformally. As noticed above, the proposal impugned is for the benefit of the cardholders of Nalluru S.C. Colony. There is no dispute that Nalluru S.C. Colony is at a distance of 1 ½ Kms., from Nalluru village where the existing shop is located. Therefore it can be seen that the cardholders of Nalluru S.C. Colony were traveling a longer distance than the cardholder of Kallukunta village to draw commodities at Nalluru village. The 1st respondent while deciding to bifurcate the shop has taken this fact into consideration, which cannot be said to be irrelevant. In the circumstances it cannot be said that the impugned order of the 1st respondent suffers from any illegality or infirmity. In view of the fact that notification dated 1.11.2011 being consequential and no other ground being urged to invalidate the said order, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed as without merits and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J. 25th November, 2011. Js.