Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Sarika Venkata Damodar Rao vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 5 August, 2024

                                      1
                                                            W.P.No.45933 of 2018

 APHC010951292018
                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
                                  AT AMARAVATI                         [3311]
                           (Special Original Jurisdiction)

                    MONDAY ,THE FIFTH DAY OF AUGUST
                    TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

                                 PRESENT

             THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI

                       WRIT PETITION NO: 45933/2018

Between:

Sarika Venkata Damodar Rao                                    ...PETITIONER

                                    AND

The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others                   ...RESPONDENT(S)

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. M M M SRINIVASA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES (AP) The Court made the following Order:

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

"...to issue writ order or direction preferably writ of mandamus declaring the order issued by the 2nd respondent by proceedings Rc.No.174/2018/CSR7, dated 10.09.2018 in respect of fair price shop No.0327039, Nerellavalasa Village, Bhimunipatnam Mandal, Visakhapatnam as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to G.O.Ms.No.35, Consumer Affairs, Food & Civil Supplies (CS.I) Department, dated 17.09.2007 and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the said order and further direct the 2 W.P.No.45933 of 2018 respondents No.2 & 3 to continue the petitioner as fair price shop dealer as usual and pass..."

02. The case of the petitioner is briefly as follows:

The petitioner is a fair price shop dealer bearing shop No.0327039, Nerellavalasa Village, Bhimunipatnam Mandal, Visakhapatnam since September, 2016, he was appointed as a dealer on compassionate grounds. Basing on G.O.Ms.No.35, Consumer Affairs, Food & Civil Supplies (CS.I) Department, dated 17.09.2007, the 2nd respondent issued proceedings vide Rc.No.174/2018/CSR7 dated 10.09.2018, bifurcating the shop of the petitioner and allotted 253 cards only to the petitioner contrary to the guidelines, against the principles of natural justice and the objective to the said G.O. as it is not viable to run a fair price shop.

03. Pending the writ petition, the petitioner filed I.A.No.01 of 2018 to suspend the operation of the impugned proceedings and this Court, on 18.12.2018, granted interim direction as prayed for.

04. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though bifurcation of fair price shop is allowed as per the said G.O., the dealer is entitled to prior notice as held by this High Court in the case of P.Mariyamma vs. The Government of Andhra Pradesh and others1, wherein at para Nos.4 to 7 it is held as follows:

MANU/AP/0243/2022 3 W.P.No.45933 of 2018 "04. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that at the time of filing of the writ petition, the petitioner is having 303 white ration cards, 36 AAY cards, 3 pink cards, 21 TAP cards and 8 RAP cards, total 371 cardholders. According to clause 6(iv) of G.O.Ms.No.35 dated 17.09.2007 each fair price shop in Mandal headquarters should have a minimum of 500 BPL cards and 250 pink cards and in respect of rural area each grampanchayat village should have atleast one fair price shop with a minimum of 400 BPL and 50 APL cards. If the petitioner's existing fair price shop is bifurcated, the petitioner will get only 194 cards. According to G.O.Ms.No.35, the bifurcation of the fair price shop has to be affected by taking into consideration of the economic viability of the fair price shops. Before sending proposal for bifurcation, the 4th respondent has not issued any notice to the petitioner, who is affected fair price shop dealer.

Therefore, the proposal sent by the 4th respondent to the 3rd respondent is in clear violation of the guidelines issued in G.O.Ms.No.35. In support of his contentions, he placed reliance on the decision in T. Ramanjaneyulu v. State of A.P and others 2 wherein the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh inter alia observing that there can be no dispute about the ratio laid down in 2000(1) ALD 9 (SC) that a fair price shop dealer has no right to be appointed as such dealer and that the right to trade under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India is not being affected in any manner by virtue of bifurcation, eventually held that before effecting bifurcation, existing fair price shop dealer is entitled for a notice to putforth the objections mostly with regard to the viability, in consonance with the principles of natural justice.

05. Learned Assistant Government Pleader while reiterating the averments in the counter submits that the bifurcation of the 2 [2009(1) ALD (NOC 12)] 4 W.P.No.45933 of 2018 petitioner's fair price shop was proposed duly following the guidelines issued in G.O.Ms.No.35. Petitioner's right to continue as fair price shop is not affected. Only cards are reduced as per guidelines issued in G.O.Ms.No.35 duly considering the economic viability of the existing fair price shop dealer and taking into consideration the hardship of the villagers of Podalapalle village.

06. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of the learned counsel and on perusal of the material record, this Court found that the petitioner's fair price was proposed to be bifurcated by the impugned proceedings, considering the difficulties of the cardholders of Podalapalle Village. As per the guidelines issued in G.O.Ms.No.35, the authorities are entitled for bifurcation of the shop to make the fair price shop convenient to the cardholders. However, the existing fair price shop dealer is entitled for notice before bifurcation of the same as the principles of natural justice requires such notice as held by this Court in T.Ramanjaneyulu (supra). Learned Assistant Government Pleader on instructions submits that as of now the petitioner's fair price shop is not bifurcated.

07. In view of the above discussion, the impugned proceeding dated 27.01.2014 proposing to bifurcate the petitioner's fair price shop No.3 is set aside."

05. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies has not disagreed with the aforesaid legal proposition.

06. Since the facts and circumstances in the present case are the same as in the case cited above, the petitioner is entitled to the relief sought in the writ petition.

07. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. However, liberty is given to the respondent authorities to initiate fresh proceedings, if required, for bifurcation of the petitioner's fair price shop by duly following the procedure contemplated under the guidelines existing as on the date of the action to be taken, by issuing notice and considering the objections. No costs.

Interim orders granted earlier, if any, shall stand vacated.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

________________________ JUSTICE B.S. BHANUMATHI Date: 05.08.2024.

NSM