IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.Y.SOMAYAJULU WRIT PETITION No.17258 OF 2004 Between: Viswa Bharathy DWAKRA Mahila Group, Kakavedu Dalithawada, Nagiri Mandal, Chittoor District, rep by its dealer S.Manjula. .... PETITIONER AND The Joint Collector, Chittoor, Chittoor District And others. ....RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.Y.SOMAYAJULU WRIT PETITION NO.17258 OF 2004 O R D E R Questioning the action of respondents 1 to 3 in not accepting the demand draft taken by it and refusing to supply the essential commodities for distribution through fair price shop and accepting the demand draft from the 4th respondent for supply of essential commodities, this writ petition is filed by the Viswa Bharathy Dwakra Mahila Group. 2. The case of the petitioner is that after the dealership for distribution of essential commodities for the villages Kakaveedu Dalithawada and Kakaveedu Audi Andhrawada Kakaveedu Village and Yanadi colony was cancelled, the shop was bifurcated into two and the dealership of one of those shops for Kakaveedu Main Village and Yanadi Colony was given to one Dwakra group and dealership of another shop was given to it by the Joint Collector on 01.06.2002 and since then it has been distributing the essential commodities without any complaint from any quarter, and though it taken out a draft for Rs.26,555/- in the name of A.P. State Civil Corporation Limited, Chittoor in September, 2004 and presented it before the Mandal Revenue Officer on the same day, he refused to receive the same without disclosing any reasons and that enquiries made by it, revealed that the third respondent under political pressure by accepting the demand drafts given by the 4th respondent is supplying essential commodities to him. 3. In the counter filed by the third respondent on behalf of respondents 1 to 3 he stated that after the authorization to Kum.Sri Devi was suspended vide proceedings of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chittoor, in the proceedings dated 22.06.2002, the then Joint Collector, Chittoor, had on the representation made by Dwakra Groups of Kakavedu village and Dalithwada, visited the village on 01.06.2002 during Janmabhoomi programme and directed the then Mandal Revenue Officer, Nagiri, to allot stocks to both the Dwakra Groups of the Village and Dalithwada and to send the bifurcation proposals for approval. Accordingly, the then Mandal Revenue Officer allotted authorization for both the Dwakra Groups temporarily and submitted bifurcation proposals, but those proposals were not accepted. While so, the dealer of the Pragathi Mahilamandili, who was permitted to run the fair price shop temporarily, had during January, 2004 informed its inability to run the fair price shop, and so, on the representation made by the petitioner that shop was attached to it from the month of February, 2004 temporarily. As the petitioner did not give the demand drafts for September, 2004 for lifting the essential commodities upto 13.09.2004, the Mandal Revenue Inspector, Nagiri, sent proposals for making alternative arrangement for distribution of essential commodities to the card holders without causing any inconvenience to them, and so, the petitioner which did not deposit demand draft within time, it is not entitled to any relief. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader on behalf of respondents 1 to 3. 5. As per Clause 23(2)(a) of the A.P. State Public Distribution System Control Order, 2001, fair price shop dealers have to remit the demand drafts before 5th of every month. Petitioner, who admittedly was not appointed as regularly fair price shop dealer, and was asked to do the job of distributing essential commodities to card holders on ad hoc basis, prima facie has no vested right to question the action of respondents 1 to 3 in not supplying the essential commodities to it for distributing to card holders, when it admittedly did not deposit the drafts as contemplated by Clause 23(2)(a) mentioned above. 6. The file produced by the Government Pleader shows that when the petitioner failed to lift the essential commodities upto 13.09.2004 the Revenue Inspector, Nagiri, sent proposals to appoint the 4th respondent as temporary fair price shop dealer to lift the essential commodities from the month of September, 2004. In view thereof, petitioner, who failed to deposit the demand drafts within the stipulated date, when it is not a regular dealer, has no right to question the action of respondents 1 to 3 in appointing the 4th respondent as temporary dealer for distributing the stocks. 7. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. Respondents 1 to 3 shall take steps to appoint a regular dealer as per the procedure prescribed, after considering the eligibility of all the candidates, as expeditiously as possible. No costs. ------------------------------------ JUSTICE C.Y.SOMAYAJULU 21st JANUARY, 2008 PGS THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.Y.SOMAYAJULU W.P.NO.17258 OF 2004 21st JANUARY, 2008