HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.32136 of 2011 Date: 09.12.2011 Between: S.A.HAMEED … Petitioner vs THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, SPSR NELLORE DIST & OTHERS. … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.32136 of 2011 O R D E R: Mandamus sought for is clearly misconceived. The petitioner is a fair price shop dealer for shop No:26 at Nellore. The neighbouring fair price shop under C.D.No.32A at Nellore fell vacant on the death of erstwhile dealer. The petitioner now seeks to enforce the guidelines, particularly clause 12 (viii) which deals with the selection of fair price shop dealer, framed by the Government under G.O.Ms.No:52, (Consumer Affairs, Food and Civil Supplies (CS.I) Department, dated 18.12.2008. The petitioner contends that he being neighbouring fair price shop dealer, cards of the neighbouring fair price shop, which fell vacant, ought to be allowed to him. But, instead, the Government is contemplating the appointment of temporary dealer. Clause 12 (viii) of the said guidelines reads as follows: “When the authorization of a F.P. shop dealer/N.R is suspended/cancelled or where a F.P shop falls vacant, to ensure uninterrupted supply of essential commodities, the cards of such dealer may be attached to the neighbouring F.P shop/NR of the same village. However, when it is not feasible to attach cards to the neighbouring F.P shop/N.R for want of a copy in the same village or for any other reasons, the F.P shop may be entrusted to persons purely on temporary basis for a limited period, clearly indicating that no right would accrue to such temporary dealer at the time of filling up of the vacancy on a regular basis.” A reading of above guidelines clearly indicates that it is for the Government to consider whether the cards of fair price shop, which fell vacant, are required to be allotted to the neighbouring dealer or to any temporary dealer, if any keeping in view the public interest. The purpose of such allotment either to the neighbouring dealer or to a temporary appointee is only to ensure the uninterrupted supply of essential commodities and to see that the cardholders should not suffer. The petitioner who is the neighbouring dealer, therefore, has no legal right to force the allotment of cards to himself and it is entirely for the respondents to consider as to what ultimate arrangement is required to be made in the interests of the card holders. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner’ representation dated 28.11.2011, may be directed to be considered by the respondents, I am unable to see any legal right of the petitioner nor a corresponding legal duty in the respondents for the aforesaid purpose. The issue is therefore entirely for the respondents to consider and make appropriate alternative arrangement as they feel think it fit. The writ petition is liable to be dismissed. According, the writ petition is dismissed. There will be no order as to the costs. ____________________ Vilas V. Afzulpurkar, J Date: 09.12.2011 Gurc. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.32136 of 2011 DATED:09.12.2011