THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI W.P.No.25250 of 2008 Date : 29-10-2010 Between : K.Dargaiah and another .. Petitioners And The Collector (Civil Supplies), Warangal and Others .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI W.P.No.25250 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioners, who are the Fair Price Shop Dealers in respect of Shop Nos.17 and 18 of Gundenga Village, Gudur Mandal, Warangal District, have filed this Writ Petition to declare the impugned notification dated 10-11-2008 in Rc.No.A/B/1395/2008 calling for the applications for grant of licences to run two fair price shops in addition to the existing two shops bearing Nos.17 and 18 as illegal and contrary to the orders of the State Government issued in G.O.Ms.No.35, dated 17-09- 2008. The petitioners hold licences to run a fair price shop Nos.17 and 18. The first petitioner’s shop is attached with 540 cards and the second petitioner with 550 cards. As the creation of two more shops would result in the reduction of existing number of cards, this Writ has been filed. Heard the learned counsel Sri A.Ravinder appearing on behalf of the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader appearing for Respondents. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the State Government in order to rationalize the existing Fair Price Shops issued instructions in G.O.Ms.No.35, Consumer Affairs, Food and Civil Supplies (CS-I) Department, dated 17-09-2007. As per the said instructions, there should be minimum of 400 BPL cards and the Authorities should keep the economic viability of the licence of the Fair Price Shop and the number of iris based cards to be attached to each fair price shop should be 400 to 450 BPL and 50 pink cards. On account of the creation of two new shops, the cards are reduced to 255 and 269 cards only. Thus, the bifurcation is contrary to the said Government Orders. He also contends that before bifurcating the shops of the petitioners, no notice has been given to the petitioners, thus the action of the respondents is violative of the principles of natural justice. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader submits that the attachment of 400 cards is not a rigid requirement. Clause (6)(v) of the G.O. provides that there can be less number of cards in the rural areas depending upon the requirement and necessity and petitioners have no fundamental right to run the fair price shops. Hence, there is no need to put petitioners on notice before creating or bifurcating the existing shops. The Apex Court in District Collector Vs. B.Suresh[1] while considering the question whether a fair price shop dealer should be put on notice before any bifurcating and reducing the number of cards under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Commodities (Regulation of Distribution by Card System) Order, 1973, held that the right to trade under Article 19 (1)(g) of Constitution of India of the dealer is not affected, since his licence has not been cancelled and the decision of the Government to reduce the number of cards does not affect rights, if any, of the Fair Price Shop Dealers, thus no prior notice is required. The learned Judge of this Court in N.Nagamani Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh dealt specifically with this question and by orders in W.P.Nos.1715 and 27032 of 2009 dated 11-03-2010 relying on the judgment of the Apex Court (supra) held that notice is not required before bifurcating the shops. It is true that another learned Judge in W.P.No.11045 of 2008 dated 14-10-2008 held that when the number of cards attached to a particular shop exceeded the prescribed number of cards, it is open to the District Collect to effect bifurcation without notice to the existing dealer but when the bifurcation is sought to be effected on any other ground, the existing dealer is entitled to a prior notice. I am inclined to follow the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the Judgment cited supra and the view taken in W.P.No.1715 and 27032 of 2009 dated 11-03-2010. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the reduction of number of cards from the shops of the petitioners is not viable and the same is contrary to the orders of the State Government issued in G.O.Ms.No.35, dated 17-09-2007 does not deserve acceptance. Although the petitioners contend that the cards are reduced to 255 from 540 in respect of the shop of the first petitioner and 269 from 550 in respect of the shop of the second petitioner, it is clear from the counter filed by the respondents that there are 314 cards attached to the shop of the first petitioner and 323 in respect of the shop of the second petitioner. The petitioners have not demonstrated that the shops have become unviable. It is also clear from the counter-affidavit that there were 605 cards in respect of shop No.17 and 605 in respect of shop No.8. The Gundenga Village consists of number of hamlets in a radius of about 5 KMs. and the new shops have been created at a distance of 4 K.Ms. from the existing shops. In view of the geographical requirement, the shops had to be rationalized and in the process the new shop Nos.19 and 20 are created attaching 291 cards alone in respect of each of the shops. Considering the similar facts, the learned Judge in judgment in W.P.Nos.1715 and 27032 of 2009 dated 11-03-2010 in the light of the orders issued in G.O.Ms.No.35, dated 17-09-2007 held as follows : “In plain terms, the intention of permitting two FPSs in a village if the number of cards are 600 or more even though the ideal number is 400 cards for each shop is for the convenience of the cardholders. Judicial notice can be taken of the facts that almost all the rural and urban poor people depend on the FPSs for their daily food needs. The Government thought it fit that one FPS in a village is 600 and more cards would cause inconvenience to cardholders. The submission of the learned counsel that under no circumstances, the number of cards in the existing shop can be reduced below 400 cannot be accepted. In a given case, if there are 600 cards in village and second shop is created by bifurcating the existing shop, it might result in the original shop retaining 400 cards and newly created shop gets 200 cards, it would certainly be not economically viable. Therefore, the interpretation placed by the counsel is unsustainable. From the above discussion, two consequences that emerge are (i) no notice is necessary before the District Collector passed orders bifurcating the shop; and (ii) it is not necessary to maintain minimum 400 cards if the single village shop has 600 cards. It is always permissible for the District Collector to bifurcate the FPS so that in the village of 600 cards into two shops attaching the BPL and APL cards equally. In the case of Bayyaram and Kolgoor villages, the District Collector has followed paragraphs 5 and 6(iv) of G.O.Ms.No.35 correctly and the same cannot be said to be contrary to norms in Government Order.” Respectfully agreeing with the said view, I am of the opinion that in the facts and circumstances of this case, the petitioners cannot have any grievance against creating the new shops. In the analysis as above, there are no merits in the Writ Petition. This Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J. 29th October, 2010 skmr [1] 2000 (1) ALD 9 (SC)