Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
T. Umasankar Reddy, vs State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 1 July, 2024
APHC010940472017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3311]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI
WRIT PETITION NO: 43536/2017
Between:
T. Umasankar Reddy, ...PETITIONER
AND
State of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri K SRINIVAS
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES (AP)
The Court made the following:
2
BSB, J
W.P.No.43536 of 2017
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:
"to issue an appropriate writ, or order or direction, more particularly, one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in issuing the Notification in Rc.No.C/2574/2017, dated 13-12-2017, inviting applications for appointment of FP shop dealers for A. Yerrabelli village in scheduled caste (woman) category, without preparing 100% roaster pints as highly illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional being violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and also violative of principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the Notification in Rc.No.C/2574/2017,dated 13.12.2017 issued by the 2nd respondent and pass such further or other order or orders that may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."
2. The facts, in brief, are as follows:
The petitioner was appointed as a Fair Price Shop dealer of A. Yerrabelli village, Obuladevaracheruvu Mandal, Ananthapuramu District, by the 2nd respondent vide Rc.No.2039/2011C, dated 08.09.2011. The contention of the petitioner is that after disposal of W.P.No.59 of 2015 and batch, by order dated 04.09.2015 of this Court, there has been variation in the existing revenue divisions.
The 2nd respondent issued notification in Rc.C/2574/2017, dated 13.12.2017, inviting applications for appointment of Fair Price shop dealers for A. Yerraballi village for scheduled castes (woman), but 3 BSB, J W.P.No.43536 of 2017 the notification did not follow 100% roaster points, however, the 2 nd respondent claimed that the order in W.P.No.59 of 2015 was followed. The existing revenue divisions of Anantapur District were two at the time of passing of the said order, whereas by the date of passing of the impugned notification, there were five (5) revenue divisions, and therefore, 100% roaster point automatically changes. But, the 2nd respondent without preparing new 100% roaster points in respect of Kadiri division, issued the notification contrary to clause 7.3 of G.O.Ms.No.4, dated 19.02.2011.
3. The 1st respondent filed counter stating that the government prepared 100 point register in five cycles for 458 F.P Shops existing in Kadiri division and the new revenue division started functioning from 26.06.2013 with 12 Mandals in Anantapur District bifurcating from Penukonda Division. The roaster was issued following the judgment in W.P.No.59 of 2015. Every 100 points roaster yields 30% of posts for women and there is no reservation in G.O.Ms.No.4, Consumer Affairs, Food and Civil Supplies (CS-1) Department, dated 19.02.2011, exclusively for women thrift groups. Preference will be observed while appointing the dealer in the categories of women quota who applied from the registered rural area groups of women voluntary consumer organization or women's thrift groups like Podupu Lakshmi Cooperative Societies. At present, 4 BSB, J W.P.No.43536 of 2017 most of the women members are in women DWACRA groups. The present petitioner is appointed on temporary basis. The petition is devoid of merits.
4. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies submitted that the petitioner belongs to OC category whereas the relevant F.P shop notified is meant for SC (Woman) as per the roaster.
5. The petitioner could not make out that 100% roaster points would automatically change as contended. The roaster points would not change with the increase in the number of revenue divisions. Therefore, there is no merit in the writ petition.
6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
__________________ B. S. BHANUMATHI, J 01-07-2024 RAR