* The Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy + Writ Petition No.39630 of 2014 % Dated: 24.12.2014 Between:
# The Teja Sri Mahila Shakthi Shangam rep. by its President Nagireddy Padma ..
Petitioner and The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Civil Supplies Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, and 5 others.
..
Respondents ! Counsel for the petitioner: Mr.K.V.Seshagiri Rao ^ Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 5: A.G.P. for Civil Supplies(AP) ^ Counsel for respondent No.6: Mr.V.N.Krishna Chaitanya for Mr.T.N.M.Ranga Rao <GIST:
>HEAD NOTE:
? Cases cited:
The Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.39630 of 2014 Dated: 24.12.2014 Between:
The Teja Sri Mahila Shakthi Shangam rep. by its President Nagireddy Padma ..
Petitioner and The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Civil Supplies Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, and 5 others.
..
Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Mr.K.V.Seshagiri Rao Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 5: A.G.P. for Civil Supplies (AP) Counsel for respondent No.6: Mr.V.N.Krishna Chaitanya for Mr.T.N.M.Ranga Rao The Court made the following:
Order:
This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.4, in appointing respondent No.6 as the temporary dealer of fair price shop No.13 of Tatiparthi Villagle of Gollaprolu Mandal, temporarily to respondent No.6, by removing the petitioner, as illegal and arbitrary.
I have heard Mr.K.V.Seshagiri Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies (AP), representing respondent Nos.1 to 5, and Mr.V.N.Krishna Chaitanya, learned Counsel representing Mr.T.N.M.Ranga Rao, learned Counsel for respondent No.6, who filed a caveat, and perused the record.
Consequent to the suspension of the dealership of one Smt.M.A.Anitha, in respect of the aforesaid fair price shop, the petitioner, which is a self-help group, was appointed as the temporary dealer vide proceeding in Ref G/2340/2010, dated 14-10-2010, of respondent No.4. The petitioner pleaded that since then, it has been distributing the essential commodities to the cardholders without any complaint whatsoever. Through the proceeding in Ref.D/1496/2014, dated 08-12-2014, respondent No.4 has replaced the petitioner with respondent No.6. Feeling aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition.
The contents of the impugned proceeding, of respondent No.4, make a rather interesting reading and they are as follows:
“In the 2nd read above complaints received from the villagers of Tatiparthi during the Janmabhoomi, against the Teja Sri Mahila Shakthi Shangam, temporary dealer of F.P.Shop No.13 of Tatiparthi Village, Gollaprolu Mandal, was not distributing the essential commodities properly and the F.P.Shop is not maintained by Teja Sri M.s.S. The above shop is running individually by Smt.Nagireddy Padma, W/o.Rambabu.
In the 3rd read above, the Tahsildar, Gollaprolu, reported that the F.P.Shop No.13 was run by Smt.M.A.Anitha, W/o.Prasad, in 2010, 6A case was filed against her and her authorization was cancelled, and the F.P.Shop No.13 was allotted to Teja Sri Mahila Shakthi Shangam on temporary basis, Presently, the shop is running by the president of Teja Sri Mahila Shakthi Shangam Smt.Nagireddy Padma W/o.Rambabu, she belong to OC community and studied 9th class.
Kum.Madiki Baby, Tatiparthi Village, Gollaprolu Mandal, submitted a representation and requested to grant temporary dealership for the F.P.Shop No.13 of Tatiparthi Village, Gollaprolu Mandal, in the 4th read above.
In the 3rd read above, the Tahsildar Gollaprolu further submitted that Kum.Madiki Baby Tatiparthi Village, Gollaprolu Mandal, belong to SC community, she completed Intermediate, living with her parents, she has the knowledge to run the FP shop and she is unemployed.
In view of the above circumstances, the earlier orders issued in favour of Teja Sri Mahila Shakthi Shangam, as temporary dealer for F.P.Shop No.13 of Tatiparthi Village, Gollaprolu Mandal, is hereby cancelled with immediate effect and Kum.Madiki Baby, Tatiparthi Village, Gollaprolu Mandal, is hereby appointed as temporary dealer for F.P.Shop No.13 of Tatiparthi village, Gollaprolu Mandal, on temporary basis, until further orders, the dealer now appointed is informed that the temporary dealership will be removed without any notice as and when necessary.”
From a perusal of the impugned order as reproduced above, it is evident that the petitioner was replaced with respondent No.6 on the purported comparative merit and not on any allegations of omissions and commissions by the President of the petitioner in running the fair price shop. In my opinion, the question of embarking upon comparative merits would arise if more than one applicant applies for appointment either as a permanent dealer or as a temporary dealer. In the present case, where the petitioner, which is a self- help group, was appointed on temporary basis more than four years back, it is not permissible for respondent No.4 to replace it only on the ground that respondent No.6 belongs to scheduled caste and that she has superior educational qualifications to that of the President of the petitioner. If such criterion is to be adopted, even respondent No.6 also may be liable for replacement, if, after her appointment, another person with superior qualifications requests for his/her appointment as such. Once a dealer is appointed even on temporary basis, the question of the appointing authority comparing the qualifications of such dealer with that of a third person, who possess higher educational qualifications, and preferring such third person on that ground should not arise at all. In the absence of any proven allegations of irregularities attributed to the petitioner in the running of the fair price shop, its replacement with respondent No.6 cannot be sustained and the impugned proceeding in Ref.D/1496/2014, dated 08-12- 2014, issued by respondent No.4, is, accordingly, set aside. Respondent No.4 is directed to continue the petitioner as the temporary fair price shop dealer till the vacancy is filled up on permanent basis.
The Writ Petition is, accordingly, allowed. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.49699 of 2014, filed by the petitioner for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous.
(C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, J) Dt: 24th December, 2014 Note:
Lr copy.
B/o lur