THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMMOHAN RAO WP No.14639 of 2009 Between G. Vasundhara .. petitioner and 1. Revenue Divisional Officer, Kurnool Revenue Divison, Kurnool and others. .. respondents. Counsel for the petitioner : Counsel for the respondents : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMMOHAN RAO WP No.14639 of 2009 Oral Order : ( Per Sri GM, J ) This Writ Petition has been filed seeking direction to the respondent No.1 to appoint the petitioner as the dealer of the Fair Price Shop No.122, Arora Nagar, Kurnool and consequently declare Rule 5(13) of the A.P. State Public Distribution System (Control ) Order 2008 as invalid as it is against Article 19(6) (ii) of the Constitution of India and to direct the respondent no.1 not to issue notification, neglecting due appointment of the petitioner under Rule 5(12) of the Order 2008 by calling for applications for appointment as fair price shop dealer. The petitioner’s husband was having fair price shop dealership and he made application for renewal of the authorization on 25-3-2009. Pending renewal application, the petitioner’s husband died on 26-4-12009, therefore the petitioner made an application to the 1st respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, Kurnool Revenue Division, Kurnool on 26-5-2009 requesting for transfer of dealership and authorization in her name. Since no action was taken by the respondents, the present writ petition was filed seeking the above relief. Learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that Section 3(1) of the Essential Commodities Act does not speak of providing opportunity for conducting fair price shops, not belonging to the family of former dealer, or co-operative societies run by private individuals. Learned counsel further contends that Rule 5(11) of the A.P. State Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008 says that “the authorization is not transferable, and the same needs to be construed in a positive manner. The contention of the learned counsel does not merit any consideration. The Rule 5(11) of the Rules categorically says that t he authorisation is not transferable and after the death of the dealer it is for the respondents-Government to take appropriate remedies as per the Rules, the legal heirs of the deceased dealer are entitled to be given preference does not merit consideration. Article 19(1) (g) provides right to carry on any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business trade or business subject to reasonable restrictions, it does not prevent the State from making any law imposing in the interest of general public. The husband of the petitioner studied upto 10th Class and he showed his financial soundness to lift the essential commodities every month for supply to the public and the same is evident from the proceedings of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kurnool dated 13-1-2000. According to the petitioner she did not pass the 10th Class and she has not showed any financial soundness with regard to allotment of the fair price dealership. In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that right of the petitioner in not appointing her as fair price dealer does not get effected and the same is subject to the reasonable restriction by the State Government. Accordingly, we do not see any merit in the writ petition. The Writ Petition fails and is dismissed. No costs. __________ GM, J _________ NRR, J Kk Date : 24-8-2009 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMMOHAN RAO WP No.14639 of 2009 24-8-2009