( 1 ) THE petitioner is seeking a writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to set aside the order of allotment dated July 9, 1983, made in favour of the fourth respondent V. Kanaka Raju of Fair Price Shop No. 83 in Block no. 22 of Nellore Town ; to continue the petitioner as dealer thereof and to issue quotas as usual.

( 2 ) THE facts are fairly not in dispute and they lie in a narrow circumference : one Vaddi Sasidhar was allotted and granted a licence in the year 1980 under the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Commodities (Licensing and distribution) Order, 1982, for short, "the Order" to run Fair Price Shop No. 83 in Block No. 22 of Nellore Town and he has been running the same. The petitioner has been working under him as a clerk. Mr. Sasidhar had surrendered the licence in February 1983. By order dated march 23 1983 the petitioner was granted temporary licence pending allotment to a regular candidate, In the interregnum, the Government, in G. O. Rt. No. 714 dated June 16, 1983. took a policy decision to allot 20% of the fair price shops held by the individuals in each district to the members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled tribes, for short, "the Dalits". Pursuant thereto, under the impugned order, shop No. 83 was allotted to Mr. V Kanaka Raju (4th respondent) a Candidate belonging to the Scheduled Caste Assailing the legality thereof, the above writ petition has been filed.

( 3 ) THE petitioner is resisting the allotment made to the fourth respondent, on many manifold contentions of constitutional issues. It is argusd by Sri krishna Reddy, that the fourth respondent though he is a Dalit, belongs to hindu community. The petitioner too is a Hindu. The petitioner has a fundamental right to carry on business under Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution. Therefore, no discrimination can bs made between him and the 4th respondent. The petitioner being a running licence-holder, is entitled to the preference over the fourth respondent. The question is whether the Government in G. O. Rt. No. 714 is entitled, in preference to the petitioner, to reserve 20% of the shops in each district for allotment to the Dalits and the impugned action is discriminatory offending Article 14 of the constitution.

( 4 ) THE Constitution is first and foremost a social document, aiming at ushering an egalitarian social revoulution establishing conditions necessary to secure justice, social, economic and political, liberty and equality of status and opportunity promoting, among its citizens, fraternity assuring them the dignity and the unity and integrity of the nation in a sovereign, socialist, secular Indian Democratic Republic. It is now settled in Kesavananda vs. State of Kerala that the preamble of the Constitution is a part of the Constitution it is the key to open the mind of the founding fathers of the Constitution and the edifice of the Constitution is built upon the concepts crystallised in the preamble. Art. 14 of the Constitution assures equality to every citizen. Article 41 in Part IV directs the State that it shall make effective provision within the limits of economic capacity the right to secure work to every citizen. Article 39 (a) directs the State to formulate its policy towards securing to all citizensmen and women equal right to an adequate means of livelihood; art. 39 (b) enjoins that the ownership and control of the material resources of the community are so distributed as best to subserve the common good; Art. 39 (c) enjoins that the operation of economic system does not result in the concentration of wealth and the means of production to the common detriment. The word "distributed" in Article 39 should be read in the context of the common good to bs served to all it5 citizens. It includes by use or the manner of use of the resources of the community. Article 38 (2) directs the State to minimise the inequalities in income and endeavour to eliminate inequalities in status by providing facilities and opportun