THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.7135 OF 2008 DATED:15.9.2011 Between: Biyyapu Araavinda … Petitioner And The Revenue Divisional Officer Kandukur, Prakasam District and another … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.7135 OF 2008 ORDER: In this writ petition, the petitioner questioned the notification No.RC.S/325/2008, dated 10.3.2008 issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kandukur, inviting applications to fill up the fair price shop dealership of Kuchipudi Village, Marripudi Mandal, Prakasam District, on permanent basis, reserving it to Backward Class (B.C.) General Category candidate. It is the case of the petitioner that inasmuch as earlier O.C. community candidate was running the shop and hence there is no reason or justification in reserving it now to B.C. candidate. Though the writ petition is of the year 2008, no counter affidavit is filed. However, on instructions, it is submitted by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies that in the concerned division there are 712 fair price shops and as per the reservation policy being applied by the respondents, 25% of the shops are to be allotted to the candidates belonging to B.Cs. While out of 712 total shops, 25% represents 178, as of now there are only 111 held by the candidates belonging to B.C. It is submitted that to fill up the shortfall, the impugned notification was issued by reserving the fair price shop to B.C. candidate. Merely because the fair price shop in question was earlier held by a O.C. candidate that itself will not give any right to the petitioner to seek to fill up the vacancy with O.C. candidate. As it is sated by the learned Assistant Government Pleader that there are 712 shops in the entire division and there is shortfall in B.C. category, for which 25% are reserved in the division, and as such to make good the shortfall the impugned arrangement has been made. There is no ground to interfere with the impugned notification. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _____________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 15.9.2011 bnr