HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI MADAN B.LOKUR AND HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO.1433 OF 2011 Dt: 29-12-2011. Between: GUNTUR VENKATESWARLU .. APPELLANT AND GOVT. OF ANDHRA PRADESH REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, CONSUMER AFFAIRS AND FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES (CS.I) DEPT., SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, HYDERABAD AND OTHERS .. RESPONDENTS HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI MADAN B.LOKUR AND HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO.1433 OF 2011 JUDGMENT: (PER HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI Madan B.Lokur) The appellant is aggrieved by an order dated 8.11.2011 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.26505 of 2008. 2. The grievance of the appellant before the learned single Judge was that the Fair Price Shop at Bapatla was sought to be bifurcated by the respondents contrary to the provisions of G.O.Ms.No.35, dated 17.09.2007. 3. The appellant had a Fair Price Shop which had in all 846 White, AAY, AP and Pink cards. This shop was sought to be bifurcated and after bifurcation the petitioner would be left with 423 cards consisting 308 White, 31 AAY, 0-AP and 84 Pink cards. 4. According to the appellant, G.O.Ms.No.35, dated 17.09.2007 postulates that a Fair Price Shop should have between 500 to 550 BPL cards in an urban area. He says that as a result of the bifurcation, the Fair Price Shop of the appellant would fall below the minimum standards laid down in G.O.Ms.No.35, dated 17.09.2007. 5. The learned single Judge was not impressed with the contention urged by the appellant since it was felt that public interest outweighed the individual interest of the appellant with regard to setting up of a Fair Price Shop in Bapatla town. 6. Feeling aggrieved the appellant is before us now and has raised the same contention as was urged before the learned single Judge. 7. We find from a reading of the counter affidavit filed by the Sub- Collector, Tenali, Guntur District that a proposal was submitted by the Tahsildar, Bapatla for bifurcation of Fair Price Shops not only the one owned by the appellant but also by others. The matter was placed for consideration before the Mandal Food Advisory Committee in its meeting held on 2.1.2008, which accepted the proposal of the Tahsildar, Bapatla. 8. Thereafter, the matter was considered by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tenali who verified the facts and found that the request of the card holders demanding bifurcation was genuine. He then placed the matter before the Collector, Guntur who also considered the matter and issued appropriate orders on 21.10.2008 bifurcating 14 Fair Price Shops in Bapatla town. The Collector has mentioned in the order that this has been done in view of the report given by the Tahsildar and in view of the difficulties faced by the card holders in lifting and getting essential commodities. 9. We find that as many as four authorities i.e. the Tahsildar, the Mandal Food Advisory Committee, the Revenue Divisional Officer as well as the Collector have come to the same conclusion viz., that it would be appropriate if the Fair Price Shop of the appellant, amongst others, is split up. That being the position, we do not think it appropriate, in exercise of writ jurisdiction, to interfere with the decision taken by the authorities who are at the grass root level and are fully aware of the case. 10. We do not find the view taken by the authorities to be perverse or irrational in any manner. It is true that the appellant may fall short of the minimum requirement of 500 BPL card holders but as held by the learned single Judge, the individual interest of the appellant cannot outweigh the interest of the card holders who are facing difficulties in lifting and getting essential commodities. Public interest demands that it should be given precedence over the private interest of a citizen. 11. We do not find any error with the view taken by the learned single Judge. 12. We find no merit in this writ appeal and it is accordingly dismissed. Miscellaneous application is also dismissed. ( MADAN B.LOKUR, CJ ) Dt: 29-12-2011. ( SANJAY KUMAR, J ) TNB