THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No.27401 of 2007 ORDER: 1 This Writ Petition is filed seeking directions by way of writ of mandamus, declaring the action of the second respondent in bifurcating the Fair Price Shop of the petitioner vide proceedings in Rc.No.E.85/2005 dated 24.03.2005 and in creating a new shop in Podalakur Village and Mandal, Nellore District as illegal and arbitrary and consequently to direct the respondents to effect deletion of ration cards in accordance with the Government Memo No.148/CS.I/98-1, dated 22.01.1999 issued by the Food, Civil Supplies & Consumer Affairs (CS.I) Department. 2 The petitioner is the existing Fair Price Shop dealer for one of the shops situated in Podalakur Village and Mandal, Nellore District. Altogether there were four existing Fair Price Shops in the said village and all the shops were attached with more than 400 consumer supply cards. When there was a representation from the villagers for creation of one more shop, for the convenience of the cardholders, the same was considered and recommended for approval by the competent authority. The District Collector, vide proceedings dated 24.03.2005 issued in Rc.No.E.85/2005 has approved the recommendation for bifurcation of shops and to create one more shop in Podalakur Village by attaching 309 ration cards. 3 In this Writ Petition basically it is the grievance of the petitioner that initially the petitioner was attached with 438 ration cards, out of which 276 cards were detached by retaining only 162 cards. It is further submitted that with regard to the other three shops, though they were having substantial number of cards, respondents have deleted less than 20 cards from each of the said shops. According to the petitioner, it is politically motivated action on the part of the respondents, and there is no reason at all for detaching 276 cards from the shop of the petitioner alone, in discrimination to other three shops where they have not deleted more than 20 cards. It is further submitted that after deleting 276 cards from the shop of the petitioner only 162 cards were retained and attached to the petitioner’s shop as such it is not economically viable to run the shop for him. 4 The District Collector, Nellore has filed a detailed counter affidavit. In the said counter affidavit while denying the various allegations made by the petitioner, it is stated that the cardholders of Vigneswarapuram village, which is hamlet of Podalakur village, have represented for creation of one more fair price shop in Vigneswarapuram village. As the said cardholders are all agricultural labourers and their representation is that they are facing more inconvenience to get their essential commodities from the existing Fair Price Shop located at a distance of 3/4 KM from their residences, and in view of the same, enquiries were made, recommendations were submitted to the authority for creation of one more fair price shop in Vigneswarapuram by attaching 309 ration cards. It is further stated that the 276 ration cardholders, which are detached from the shop of the petitioner, are residents of Vigneswarapuram area and as such to make it convenient to the said cardholders, more number of cards have been deleted from the shop of the petitioner. In the counter affidavit, it is also stated that in the year 2009 new ration cards were issued and at present the fair price shop of the petitioner (Shop No.54 of Podalakur) is having 349 BPL cards and 25 Anthyodaya cards totalling to 374, as such it is viable to the petitioner to run the fair price shop. 5 After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, a glance at the figures given by the petitioner in the affidavit indicates that bifurcation on the part of the respondents by deleting more number of cards i.e. 276 cards from the shop of the petitioner alone appears unjustified. But, in view of the stand of the respondents in the counter it is justifiable because it was on the representation of the cardholders of Vigneswarapuram, who are mostly labourers, that they are facing lot of inconvenience in getting the essential commodities from the existing shop which is at a distance of ¾ KM from their residence only, the new shop is created in the colony itself, which is nearer to the residences of the cardholders. In that view of the matter, though it is pleaded that the action on the part of the respondents is a politically motivated one, but in view of the denial of the said allegation in the counter affidavit coupled with the explanation offered by the respondents for deleting such huge number of 276 cards from the shop of the petitioner, the respondents are justified in taking such action. More number of cards, which are attached to the shop of the petitioner, were removed only in view of the representation of the cardholders who are nearer to the newly created shop which is established in Vigneswarapurm colony. In any event, it is also to be noticed that during the pendnecy of the Writ Petition new cards were attached to the petitioner, which is evident from the counter affidavit filed by the respondents and at present there are about 374 cards attached to the petitioner’s shop and as such it cannot be said that the petitioner is not economically viable to the petitioner to run the shop. It is also to be noticed that the very control order framed for distribution of essential commodities under the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, is to safeguard the interest of the cardholders. In that view of the matter, convenience of the cardholders should be the ultimate criteria for deciding the location of the shop and attaching the number of cards to the different shops. 6 In view of the reasons given in the counter affidavit, I do not find any illegality in the process adopted by the respondents for creation of a new shop by detaching the cards from the existing shops so as to declare the same as illegal. 7 For the aforesaid reasons, I see no merit in this Writ Petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ------------------------ R.Subhash Reddy, J. 27.10.2011 Kvsn