Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Smt. P. Mariyamma, Chittoor Dist. vs The Govt.Of A.P.,C.S.,Hyd., 3 Otrs. on 7 February, 2022
Author: M.Ganga Rao
Bench: M. Ganga Rao
1
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M. GANGA RAO
W.P.No.3787 of 2014
ORDER:
The action of the 4th respondent in sending proposals to the 3rd respondent vide ROC A/18/2014 dated 27.01.2014 and recommending for bifurcation of the fair price shop of Chillamakulapalle and for creating new FP shop at Podalapalle is questioned in this writ petition as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the guidelines issued in GO.Ms.No.35 dated 17.09.2007.
The case of the petitioner is that she was appointed as a fair price shop dealer of shop No.3 of Chillamakulapalle village, SR Puram Mandal, Chittoor District in the year 1995. Since then she has been distributing the essential commodities to the card holders without any complaint. While so, the villagers of Podalapalle village of SR Puram Mandal represented to the MLA G.D Nellore Constituency, to bifurcate the existing FP shop of Chillamakulapalle village inter alia stating that Chillamakulapalle village is at a distance of 3 KMs from their village and that they are facing difficulty to get their essential commodities from the existing FP shop No.3 and requested to create new FP shop at Podalapalle. Earlier also when an attempt to bifurcate the FP shop of the petitioner was made, the petitioner filed WP.No.425 of 2006 and the same was disposed of vide order dated 06.01.2006 directing the petitioner to make a representation before the District Collector, Chittoor, with regard to opening of the new fair price shops and on such representation being filed, the same shall be considered and disposed of by passing appropriate orders as per the instructions issued by the Government from time to time in accordance with law. Now, pursuant to the representation said to have been given by the villagers of Podalapalle, the 4th respondent, without calling for objections from the petitioner, simply sent proposals 2 to the 3rd respondent vide proceedings dated 27.01.2014 recommending bifurcation of the petitioner's fair price shop No.3 of Chillamakulapalle village into two shops. The said action of the 4th respondent is contrary to the orders passed in WP.No.425 of 2006. Hence, the present writ petition came to be filed.
The 4th respondent filed counter affidavit inter alia stating that in the interests of cardholders of Podalapalle Dalit wada and at their request, taking into consideration their difficulty to travel about 3 KMs to reach the existing FP shop every month to get their essential commodities from FP shop of Chillamakulapalle, the 4th respondent submitted proposals recommending for bifurcation of the existing FP shop of Chillamakulapalle. The 4th respondent after conducting detailed enquiry only submitted proposals for bifurcation. The respondent authorities are under obligation to provide fair price shops near to the card holders for their convenience.
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 3 contentions, he placed reliance on the decision in T. Ramanjaneyulu v. State of A.P and others [2009(1) ALD (NOC 12)] 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.
Learned Assistant Government Pleader while reiterating the averments in the counter submits that the bifurcation of the 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.
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. 4 Ramanjaneyulu (supra). Learned Assistant Government Pleader on instructions submits that as of now the petitioner's fair price shop is not bifurcated.
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.
Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. However, liberty is given to the respondent authorities to initiate fresh proceedings for bifurcation of the petitioner's fair price shop by duly following the procedure contemplated under G.O.Ms.No.35 by issuing notice and considering the objections. No order as to costs.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, pending, if any, shall stand closed.
__________________ M.GANGA RAO,J 07.02.2022 Vjl 5 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M. GANGA RAO W.P.No.3787 of 2014 07.02.2022 Vjl