HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.8169 of 2008 ORDER: In this Writ Petition, the petitioner has questioned the proceedings vide Rc.E.No.122/2008, dated 24.01.2008, of the District Collector, Nellore-first respondent, approving the proposals of respondent Nos.2 and 3 for bifurcation of the existing fair price shop of Idimepalli Village, for the purpose of creating a new fair price shop at Palakurivaripalem. Earlier, for both Idimepalli and Palakurivaripalem, there was only one fair price shop, which was allotted 510 white ration cards and 44 AAY, with total number of 645 cards, as per the impugned proceedings. After bifurcation, the fair price shop of the petitioner was allotted 264 white ration cards, 7 AAY, 2 Annapurna and 56 pink ration cards, totalling to 329. It is the case of the petitioner that without any valid reasons, the respondents have bifurcated the existing fair price shop at Idimepalli Village and that the distance between the two villages i.e., Idimepalli and Palakurivaripalem is 1 km, but not 3 kms as mentioned in the impugned proceedings. A detailed counter-affidavit is filed on behalf of respondent No.1, wherein it is inter alia stated that Idimepalli Revenue village consists of two habitations i.e., Idimepalli and Palakurivaripalem; that distance between them is approximately 3 kms; that there was only one fair price shop in Idimepalli Village for both the habitations; that the household supply card holders of Palakurivaripalem have been representing since 1987 that they are facing difficulty to get their essential commodities from the fair price shop which is located at a distance of 3 kms; and as such, for convenience of the card holders, the proposals for bifurcation of the existing fair price shop was made and the same are approved by the first respondent. Mainly, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that after bifurcation, the number cards retained by the petitioner’s fair price shop is only 329 and as such, it is not viable for the petitioner to run the shop. He also disputed the distance of 2 kms from the fair price of Idimepalli and the proposed new fair price shop at Palakurivaripalem, as mentioned in the impugned order. It is further contended that the respondents by bifurcation of the existing fair price shop, have violated guideline No.6(v) in G.O.Ms.No.35, dated 17.09.2007, which prescribes that in rural areas, each gram Panchayat should have at least one fair price shop with a minimum number of 400 BPL cards and 50 APL cards apart from other cards to meet the viability norms. After bifurcation, the petitioner’s fair price shop is attached with only 329 cards and as such, the impugned proceedings are in violation of the guidelines laid down by the Government in the said G.O. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies, representing the respondents, submitted that in view of the representations of residents of Palakurivaripalem, who are facing difficulty in transporting their essential commodities and also in view of the proposals made by the Mandal Food Advisory Society, as recommended by respondent No.2, the impugned orders are passed by the first respondent. He further submitted that as per the guidelines notified by the Government, the fair price shop should be located within a radius of 1 km from the residences of the card holders. It is pertinent to note that for the purpose of viability, the respondents have fixed minimum number of cards to be attached to the fair price shop in City, Municipality, Rural areas, etc., but at the same time, there is also a guideline to the effect that fair price shop should be situated within a distance of 1 km from the residences of the card holders. Therefore, having regard to the object of the public distribution system, only on the viability norms, the distance between the fair price shop and the residences of the card holders should not be overlooked. Merely on the ground that the number of cards attached to the fair price shop of the petitioner is less than 400 after bifurcation, this Court cannot interfere with the impugned order of District Collector approving the proposals for bifurcation, which are based on the recommendations of the Mandal Food Advisory Society and also respondent No.2-Revenue Divisional Officer. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on a certificate issued by the Village Revenue Officer to show that the distance between Idimepalli and Palakurivaripalem is only 1 km, but in the impugned order it is clearly stated that the same is 2 kms and in the counter-affidavit it is clarified that it is 3 kms. In the absence of any reply-affidavit, there is no reason to disbelieve the statement made in the counter-affidavit and the impugned order with regard to the distance between the said two Villages. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order approving the bifurcation proposal of the said fair price shop. However, as it will take some time to appoint the dealer for the newly created shop, the respondents are directed to continue the petitioner as a dealer, till appropriate steps are taken. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________________ JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY 03rd December 2011 DR