IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 22664 of 2006 Between: Battipati Rami Reddy S/o Subbi Rami Reddy N.R. No. 57/80, R/o 14/38 Near Bhasakara Talkies Gudiwada Krishna District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commissioner, of Civil Supplies, Civil Supplies Bhavan, Erramanzil Hyderabad. 2 The Collector, Krishna District at machilipatnam. 3 Revenue Divisional Officer, Gudiwada Gudiwada Mandal, Krishna District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus, orany other appropriate Writ, order or direction, declaring the action of the 3rd respondent (RDO, Gudiwada) going to invite application for the F.P. Shop No. 35 of Gudiwada is illegal, improper and pass such other order or orders as may deem fit and proper inthe circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.V.H.V.R.R.SWAMY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: The Writ Petition is directed against an apprehended conduct of the 3rd respondent, of notifying applications for grant of authorization for Fair Price Shop No. 35 of Gudiwada, Krishna District. The petitioner is a nominated retailer, licensed to vend kerosene in retail. The licence was issued to the petitioner under the Andhra Pradesh Petroleum Products (Licensing and Regulation of Supplies) Rules, 1980. The vending of kerosene, an essential commodity, was being regulated in a variety of ways and has evolved over a period of time. Initially, there was a dual system, i.e., vending through the nominated retailers like the petitioner and also through the Fair Price shops. With a view to streamline the supply, the Government issued a Circular dated 19.3.2005, pursuant to a decision of a group of Ministers with the Chief Minister chairing the meeting dated 15.1.2005, proposing a policy for conversion of existing nominated retailers as Fair Price shop dealers in a phased manner and the Circular dated 19.3.2005 issued instructions to the several regulating authorities namely; Collectors and the Chief Rationing Oﬃcer, Hyderabad to take necessary steps for conversion of existing nominated retailers as Fair Price shop dealers in a phased manner and to report compliance. It would appear that the Collector, West Godavari issued orders on 21.4.2005 for conversion of 23 nominated retailers within his jurisdiction into Fair Price shop dealers. The State Government issued another Circular dated 31.5.2005 by way of clariﬁcation of certain doubts expressed by the regulating authorities with regard to the implementation of the earlier Circular dated 19.3.2005, on the aspect as to whether in the process of conversion of nominated retailers into Fair Price shop dealers, the qualiﬁcations for appointment as Fair Price shop dealers need to be followed? The other instructions with regard to the process of conversion of nominated retailers to Fair Price shop dealers in a phased manner, re-enforcing the earlier Circular dated 19.3.2005 have also been issued in the Circular of the Government dated 31.5.2005. The grievance of the petitioner, as discernible from the pleadings is that without following the instructions issued by the Government in the Circulars dated 19.3.2005 and 31.3.2005, the 3rd respondent is proceeding to issue a notiﬁcation for appointment of a Fair Price shop dealer in respect of Shop No.35 of Gudiwada, a locality proximal to the petitioner’s current place of business as a nominated retailer. On behalf of the respondents, the ﬁrst respondent ﬁled a counter aﬃdavit on 31.7.2008. To the extent relevant and material, the counter avers that initially the State Government in G.O.Rt.No. 419 dated 19.4.1983 empowered the Collectors for conversion of Hawkers into nominated retailers with some guidelines as to how such conversion is to be eﬀected. Initially, the Fair Price shop dealers were distributing other essential commodities, except kerosene oil. After the recognition of kerosene oil also as an essential commodity for vending through the Public Distribution System, kerosene was supplied through the Fair Price shops to the cardholders. Thereafter, the State Government went on ﬁne-tuning the system of the dual policy of vending kerosene oil partly through the nominated retailers and partly through Fair Price shop dealers and issued the circulars which are referred to in the Writ Petition. Certain Writ Petitions were ﬁled, including W.P.Nos. 27066 of 2006 and batch by Fair Price shop dealers, assailing the competition engendered as a result of conversion of the nominated retailers as Fair Price shop dealers. In view of the generation of such litigation, the counter states, the State Government issued G.O.Ms.No. 32 dated 30.8.2007 for appointment as Fair Price shop dealers including by considering applications of nominated retailers, if they are eligible in accordance with the recruitment norms speciﬁed for Fair Price shop dealers namely; the age speciﬁcation of being within the range of 18 to 40 years; a pass in the 10th class and the like. In terms of the orders in G.O.Ms.No.32, there is no question of conversion of nominated retailers. Nominated retailers would also be considered for appointment as Fair Price shop dealers by grant of fresh authorization by a process of direct recruitment, if the applicants including nominated dealers conform to the eligibility criteria for Fair Price shop dealers, i.e., age and qualification. Insofar as the petitioner’s grievance with regard to the potential notiﬁcation by the 3rd respondent of Fair Price Shop No.35 of Gudiwada is concerned, the counter states that the 3rd respondent had notiﬁed a shop for being ﬁlled up from amongst Scheduled Caste category candidates. After a process selection, one Kumba Edukondalu was granted authorization in respect of F.P. Shop No.35 on 3.5.2008. The petitioner did not apply pursuant to the notiﬁcation. The Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Gudiwada is also reported to have informed the respondents that on enquiry the petitioner was found to be aged 53 years with the qualiﬁcation of 7th class and was thus ineligible for grant of Fair Price shop authorization. In the circumstances, the petitioner has no lawful grievance, is the contention on behalf of the respondents. The Circulars dated 19.3.2005 and 31.3.2005 on which much reliance is placed by the petitioner are mere administrative instructions which are not executable per se under Art. 226 of the Constitution. These executive instructions, on a true and fair construction of their content are intended to ensure eﬃcient supply of kerosene oil to the consumers and for the re-structuring of the dual policy of vending kerosene through the nominated retailers and Fair Price shops by a process of conversion of nominated retailers as Fair Price shop authorizees. The executive instructions provide for conversion as an ancillary product of such Government policy. It must also be noticed that the licences granted to the petitioner and other like nominated retailers is not by a transparent process of a public notiﬁcation, inviting tenders from those interested in obtaining licence as a nominated retailer. The pleadings disclose that the licences were issued to the nominated retailers by (as the name itself discloses) a process of nomination. It is trite Constitutional and Public Law policy that State largesse cannot be farmed out by clandestine process of identification of beneficiaries by executive agencies. In any view of the matter, the process of automatic conversion of persons granted licence by such non-transparent method, into Fair Price shop dealers under a scheme of Licencing which involves a public notiﬁcation and consideration of all eligible applicants, may not pass Constitutional and Public Law scrutiny. Currently, however the grant of authorizations is governed by a set of executive instructions which constitute the regulatory domain and under the extant policy domain, even a nominated retailer, if an applicant for grant of authorization for a Fair Price shop, must conform to the eligibility criteria generically ﬁxed for all. There is no preference carved out or an exemption granted to existing nominated retailers. This policy appears in conformity with the Constitutional injunctions of equality. On the aforesaid analysis, no relief could be granted. The Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. GODA RAGHURAM, J Date: 04.08.2008 cvm