Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
B. Sunanda, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 31 January, 2022
Author: M.Ganga Rao
Bench: M.Ganga Rao
HON'BLE SRI. JUSTICE M.GANGA RAO
W.P.No.14835 of 2017
ORDER
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for the respondents.
The case of the petitioner is that, she was appointed as fair price shop dealer. Since then she has been distributing the essential commodities to the card holders without any complaint. While things stood thus, the shop of the petitioner is sought to be bifurcated. The respondents proposed to bifurcate the existing shop by keeping in view the economic viability of the fair price shop. The arbitrary method of creation of new shops without following the rationalization method as per Government Orders is illegal and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The action of the respondent in recommending the proposal of bifurcation without prior notice to the petitioner is highly illegal, arbitrary and also against the principles of natural justice. Being aggrieved by the same the present Writ Petition is filed.
This writ petition is filed in the year 2017, questioning the impugned order. This Court by order dated 24.04.2017 suspended the said impugned order. Bifurcation of the shop was proposed only due to the election in the village and to reduce the ill-following between the village groups. After 2017, much water flown under the bridge.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier the petitioner was allotted 322 cards on bifurcation. At present the petitioner is having only 277 cards. 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 2 have atleast one fair price shop with a minimum of 400 BPL and 50 APL 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 3rd respondent has not issued any notice to the petitioner, who is affected fair price shop dealer. Therefore, the proposal sent by the 3 rd respondent to the 2nd 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 Andhra Pradesh and others1 wherein the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh inter alia observed 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(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 Kalluru village, Ananthapuramu District.
Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of 1 2009(1) ALD (NOC 12) 3 the record, this Court found that 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 bifurcati5ion of the same as the principles of natural justice requires such notice as held by this Court in T. Ramanjaneyulu V. State of Andhra Pradesh and others1 (Supra). Learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that the 5th respondent has already been appointed as a fair price shop dealer for the newly created fair price shop.
In view of the above discussion, the impugned proceeding dated 12.04.2017 bifurcating the petitioner's fair price shop No.21 is set aside and the matter is remitted to the 2nd respondent to consider the matter afresh after giving opportunity to both the parties as per law by duly following the procedure contemplated under G.O.Ms.No.35 by issuing notice and considering the objections.
Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.
________________ M.GANGA RAO, J 31.01.2022 PGT 4 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.GANGA RAO WP.No.14835 of 2017 Date: 31.01.2022 PGT