THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.28334 of 2014 Dated: 30.10.2014 Between:
B. Adinarayana Reddy .. Petitioner and The Govt. of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Prl. Secretary, Department of Civil Supplies, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad, and others. .. Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Mr. S.D. Gowd Counsel for respondents 1 to 5: AGP for Civil Supplies (A.P.) Counsel for respondent No.6: Mr. N. Aswartha Narayana
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside memo bearing No.2013/CS-I(1)/2012-7 dated 26.04.2014 of respondent No.1, proceedings in N1/2939/2010 dated 24.12.2010 of respondent No.2 and proceedings in D.Dis.No.K5/896/2009 dated 14.10.2009 of respondent No.3.
I have heard Mr. S.D. Gowd, learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies (A.P.) appearing for respondents 1 to 5 and Mr. N. Aswartha Narayana, the learned counsel for respondent No.6 who got himself impleaded in this case.
The petitioner is the fair price shop dealer of Madugupalli Village, Putluru Mandal, Anantapur District. The said shop was holding in all 429 ration cards comprising 398 white cards and 31 AAY cards.
By proceedings dated 14.10.2009, respondent No.3 has bifurcated the said shop by creating a new fair price shop at Polepalli. Upon such creation, the petitioner’s fair price shop was left with 218 cards and the newly created shop was allotted 217 cards. Questioning this order, the petitioner filed an appeal before respondent No.2. The said appeal was dismissed by respondent No.2 vide proceedings dated 24.12.2010. The revision petition filed by the petitioner against the said order was dismissed by respondent No.1 vide memo No.2013/CS-
I(1)/2012-7 dated 26.04.2014. Feeling aggrieved by all these orders, the petitioner filed this writ petition.
At the hearing, Mr. S.D. Gowd, learned counsel for the petitioner, advanced two contentions, namely; 1) that respondent No.1 has not issued a notice of hearing which was allegedly held on 04.04.2014 and dismissed the revision petition without giving the petitioner an opportunity of personal hearing and 2) that bifurcation of the shop is contrary to the norms prescribed under G.O.Ms.No.35 Consumer Affairs, Food & Civil Supplies (CS.1) Department dated 17.09.2007.
As regards the first submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies placed before the Court the relevant record, which shows that the revision petition was adjourned from time to time at the request of the petitioner. The case was posted on 15.03.2014 at the request of the petitioner and again it was adjourned at his request to 22.03.2014. On a further request made by the petitioner, the case was adjourned to 04.04.2014. On the said date, when the case was taken up for hearing, the petitioner was not present and the hearing was closed. The record reveals that the notices were sent to all the concerned including the petitioner on 18.03.2014 itself. The postal receipts show that they were sent through registered post. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that notice of hearing was not served on his client. Even in the absence of acknowledgment, as the notice was sent to the petitioner’s last known address, it is reasonable to presume that the same is served. Assuming that the notices have not been served, I do not feel inclined to remand the case to respondent No.1 for re-hearing. Instead, I have called upon the learned counsel for all the parties to address their arguments on merits, to avoid remand. Accordingly, I have heard the case.
The main ground on which the petitioner has assailed bifurcation is that as per G.O.Ms.No.35 dated 17.09.2007, every fair price shop in a rural area must have 400 BPL cards and 50 APL cards, that the bifurcation of the existing shop has resulted in reduction of the minimum required cards to 218 as against 400 cards and that, therefore, the impugned bifurcation is wholly illegal. In his order, respondent No.2 has dealt with this aspect. He has relied upon memo No.148/CS.I/99-1 dated 22.01.1999, wherein it is provided that for special reasons like dissidence of faction in a village or certain social tensions between one community and another due to caste or religious conflicts, the Collectors, if they are fully satisfied for splitting the shops for the benefit of the community, may do so giving reasons for such sanction of new shops. In his order, respondent No.3 has referred to the report dated 23.10.2009 of the Revenue Divisional Officer, wherein he has stated that the cardholders of Madugupalli Village have been suffering due to politics and facing difficulties in receiving essential commodities, that Madugupalli is a faction village where there are two groups and that some of the persons belonging to S.C. and other cardholders belonging to the rival group of the petitioner are facing much difficulties in receiving the essential commodities.
In my opinion, G.O.Ms.No.35 dated 17.09.2007 is an administrative proceeding, which ordinarily is not enforceable as it has no statutory force. At best, it contains the guidelines for the guidance of the authorities concerned. While it is true that viability of a fair price shop is very much needed to prevent the fair price shop dealers from indulging in malpractices, the State, at the same time, has to take into consideration certain special circumstances. Where in a case of this nature, as reported by the Revenue Divisional Officer, there are rival groups in the village creating difficulty for one group to receive essential commodities, this Court cannot interfere with the decision taken by respondent No.3 to facilitate that group of cardholders to receive supplies without any hassles.
Learned counsel for the petitioner seriously disputed the finding of the District Collector that there are factions in the village. I am afraid, while exercising jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court does not delve into such disputed questions of fact. As the decision to bifurcate the existing fair price shop is apparently taken to avoid hardship to one of the rival groups in the village, I am not inclined to interfere with such decision.
For the above-mentioned reasons, the writ petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed.
As a sequel to the dismissal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.35480 of 2014 shall stand disposed of as infructuous.
C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 30th October, 2014 IBL