THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.24630 of 2010 Dated 04th October, 2010 Between: Smt. S. Ananthamma …Petitioner And The Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Secretary, and others. …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri Syed Khader Masthan Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4: Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies Counsel for respondent No.5: -- The Court made the following: ORDER: The petitioner, who is the fair price shop dealer of shop No.1 of Jeewangi Village, Basheerabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, filed the present writ petition feeling aggrieved by bifurcation of his fair price shop and the attempt of the official respondents to entrust distribution of essential commodities to the newly created fair price shop to respondent No.5. I have heard Mr. Syed Khader Masthan, the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. The fair price shop held by the petitioner was bifurcated in pursuance of the proceedings dated 17.08.2009 of respondent No.2, whereunder he has taken into consideration the need for creation of nine new shops in Tandur Mandal, wherein 29 shops were in existence. In order to carry out the said direction, Jeewangi Village fair price shop was bifurcated and notification was issued for selection of fair price shop dealer for the newly created shop. Even according to the petitioner, the selection process was completed and respondent No.5 was selected and appointed as fair price shop dealer of the new fair price shop. In order to distribute the cards between the two dealers, respondent No.4 has addressed letter dated 25.09.2010 to the petitioner and respondent No.5 to attend a meeting to discuss about the distribution of cards. It is at this stage that the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. In my opinion, the petitioner does not have a vested right to insist that her shop shall not be bifurcated. However, at the same time, the official respondents are bound to strictly adhere to the norms and guidelines fixed in G.O.Ms.No.35 dated 17.09.2007 to ensure viability of the fair price shops while bifurcating them. Even proceedings dated 17.08.2009 of respondent No.2 reiterated the above aspects. I am, therefore, of the opinion that while the petitioner cannot legitimately question bifurcation, she is entitled to insist that her shop shall be ensured viability in terms of G.O.Ms.No.35 dated 17.09.2007. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of with the direction to respondent Nos.2 to 4 to strictly adhere to the guidelines contained in G.O.Ms.No.35 dated 17.09.2007 and the proceedings dated 17.08.2009 of respondent No.2 while distributing the cards between the petitioner and respondent No.5. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.31516 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 04th October, 2010 GHN