IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 3363 of 2008 Between: Boilla Malyadri, S/o Venkaiah, Aged 42 years, Occ: F.P.Shop dealers, Gottigundala Village, Kondapuram Mandal, Nellore District. ….Petitioner AND 1. The Tahsildar, Kondapuram Mandal, Nellore District. 2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Revenue Division, Kavali, Nellore District. 3. The District Collector, Nellore District, Nellore. ….Respondents COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER: MR.PAVULURI SREENIVASULU COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS: AGP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to set aside proceedings, dated 29.01.2008 issued by respondent No.3 and consequential notice, dated 05.02.2008 issued by respondent No.1. The petitioner was appointed as Gottigundala fair price shop dealer and has been continuing as such. By proceedings, dated 29.01.2008, the said fair price shop has been bifurcated by creating a new shop, by name, Gottigundala-2 with 499 cards allocated to the petitioner’s existing shop and 476 cards to the newly created shop. Consequential proceedings were issued on 05.02.2008 by respondent No.1 to effectuate the proceedings of respondent No.3. In his affidavit, the petitioner alleged that respondent No.3 resorted to the action of bifurcation of petitioner’s fair price shop on the pressure brought upon him by the local MLA and that there was no need for such bifurcation. I have heard Sri P.Sreenivasulu, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. The petitioner in his affidavit made a vague allegation that bifurcation was made at the instance of the local MLA. He has neither named the MLA nor made him a party to the writ petition. The law is well settled that vague allegations of mala fides without giving proper details and filing material in support thereof and making the person against whom mala fides are made a party to the writ petition, are liable to be rejected. As held in E.P.ROYAPPA v. STATE OF TAMILNADU [1] , while it is very easy to make allegations of mala fides, it is very difficult to prove them and that the burden is heavily on the person, who makes the allegations of mala fides to prove the same. Having carefully considered the averments contained in the affidavit, I am of the view that the allegations of mala fides made by the petitioner fall way short of the required standard of proof and hence, they are rejected. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the finding in the impugned order that newly created shop is about 1½ kilometers from the existing shop is false and that the distance between the two shops is about 50 meters. It is not possible for this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to embark upon the disputed questions of fact. At any rate, the decision of respondent No.3 to bifurcate the existing fair price shop is purely administrative in nature and the petitioner failed to demonstrate that this decision affected any of the legal rights of the petitioner. For the above-mentioned reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, WPMP.No.4377 of 2008 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 27th MARCH, 2008 kvni [1] AIR 1974 SC 555