THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION Nos.6529 AND 6569 OF 2010 DATED:23.03.2010 Between: T.Rajender Reddy and another .. Petitioners And The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Consumer Affairs, Food and Civil Supplies, (C.S.I.) Department, rep., by its E-Officio Secretary to Government, Secretariat, Hyderabad and another .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION Nos.6529 AND 6569 OF 2010 COMMON ORDER: In these two Writ Petitions, the cause of action for filing the cases is the notification Nos.B2/612/2010 and B2/611/2010, dated 08.03.2010 issued by the third respondent. By the said notifications, the third respondent, namely, the Revenue Divisional Officer, invited applications for appointment of Fair Price Shop (FPS) dealers at Ananthasagar and Togarpalli Villages. The petitioners pray for (writs of) Mandamus declaring the action of the third respondent in contemplating to bifurcate the existing FPSs of the villages into two shops each as illegal, arbitrary, mala fide and colorable exercise of power. The petitioner in the first Writ Petition statedly belongs to Backward Class Community. He was appointed as FPS dealer of Ananthasagar Village in 1988. Authorization was renewed from time to time. It is valid upto 31.03.2011. The third respondent issued notification again inviting applications for appointment of FPS dealer for Ananthasagar Village. The petitioner in the second Writ Petition also statedly belongs to Backard Class Community. He was appointed as FPS dealer of Togarpalli Village in 1988 and his authorization was valid up to 31.03.2010. When the authorization is in existence, the notification was issued by the third respondent. In both the cases, the petitioners contend that purporting to act under the guidelines issued in G.O.Ms.No.35, dated 17.09.2007, the District Collector bifurcated the existing FPS shops into two shops. Their grievance is that no notices were issued to them and therefore the action of third respondent in issuing notifications is illegal and arbitrary. Counsel for the petitioners, who made these submissions, relied on T.Ramanjaneyulu v State of Andhra Pradesh[1] and an unreported decision in Nagesh v The Government of Andhra Pradesh Consumer Affairs, Food and Civil Supplies (CSI) Department (W.P.No.27076 of 2008, dated 17.04.2009) in support of the contention that when the bifurcation of the existing FPSs adversely affects to exist FPS dealers, the District Collector is bound to give notice. There is no dispute that a person has no right to be appointed as a dealer of FPS. By such non-appointment, the right under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India cannot be said to be infringed. By the same principle, as long as the dealership is not cancelled in accordance with the relevant Control Order, the existing FPS dealership cannot have any right and bifurcation does not result in any civil consequences. Therefore, no notice is required. This was so held by the Supreme Court in District Collector v M.Suresh[2]. Further in T.Ramanjaneyulu’s case, this Court also observed as under. Where the cards attached to a particular shop exceeded the minimum number of cards prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.35 dated 17.09.2007, probably it is open to the District Collector to effect bifurcation without notice to the existing dealer. However, when the bifurcation is sought to be effected on any other ground, the existing dealer is entitled to a prior notice informing him the said grounds and calling upon him to show-cause as to why the cards attached to his shop should not be reduced so as to create a new shop. Therefore, the submission is misconceived. Further, the order of the District Collector bifurcating the existing FPSs is not challenged before this Court. Against any order of bifurcation, an appeal lies to the Director of Civil Supplies and the petitioners may have to avail an alternative remedy before approaching this Court with disputed questions of fact, with regard to number of ration cards attached to each of the shop. The Writ Petitions are misconceived and are accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ (V.V.S. RAO, J) 23.03.2010 KH [1] 2008 4 APLJ 52 = 2009 (1) ALD (NOC) 12 [2] 2000 (1) A.L.D. 9 (SC)