SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(AP) 696

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
BATTU DEVANAND, J.
The Primary Agricultural Co-Op. Society - Appellant
Versus
The Dist. Collector, Nellore and Others - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 28016 of 2008
Decided On : 28-10-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : V. Sudhakar Reddy.

The bifurcation of a fair price shop may be upheld if it is done in accordance with the norms prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.35, dated 17.09.2007, considering the convenience of the cardholders and the economic viability of the fair price shop.

Headnote:

FAIR PRICE SHOP - BIFURCATION - G.O.Ms.No.35, CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES (CS-1) DEPARTMENT, DATED 17.09.2007 - INTERPRETATION - COURT ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION - Bifurcation of fair price shop into three shops upheld as it was done in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.35, dated 17.09.2007, considering the convenience of cardholders and the economic viability of the fair price shop.

Fact of the Case:

Petitioner, the Secretary of a Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society and permanent Fair Price Shop Dealer, challenged the bifurcation of his shop into three shops by the District Collector. He alleged that the bifurcation was illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice, and contrary to G.O.Ms.No.35, dated 17.09.2007.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the bifurcation of the fair price shop was done in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.35, dated 17.09.2007, which prescribed norms for the rationalization of fair price shops. The court noted that the cardholders had to travel 3 kilometers to reach the petitioner's shop and that the shop had more than 1600 cardholders. The court also considered the fact that the bifurcation would result in each shop having a number of cards within the prescribed norms.

Issues: 1. Whether the bifurcation of the fair price shop was illegal, arbitrary, and violative of principles of natural justice? 2. Whether the bifurcation was contrary to G.O.Ms.No.35, dated 17.09.2007?

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the bifurcation of the fair price shop was not illegal, arbitrary, or violative of principles of natural justice. The court also held that the bifurcation was not contrary to G.O.Ms.No.35, dated 17.09.2007, as it was done in accordance with the norms prescribed in the G.O. The court considered the convenience of the cardholders and the economic viability of the fair price shop in reaching its decision.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, holding that there were no merits in the petition warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

ORDER :

This Writ Petition has been filed by the Petitioner seeking the following relief :

“to declare the order of the 1st respondent issued in Rc.E.1036/2008, dated 07.11.2008 bifurcating the fair price of shop of the petitioner i.e., FP shop No.34 of Kaligiri Village and Mandal, SPS Nellore District into three shops as illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice and contrary to the provisions of G.O.Ms.No.35, Consumer Affairs, Food and Civil Supplies (CS-1) Department, dated 17.09.2007 and also declare the consequential notification issued by the 2nd respondent in Rc.B.3686/2008, dated 01.12.2008, calling for the applications for grant of authorization insofar as serial Nos. 12 and 13 of the said notification i.e., FP shop Nos. 34-A and 34-B of Kaligiri as bad in law and set aside the same.”

2. Heard Sri V. Sudhakar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies and perused the record.

3. The case of the petitioner is that he is the Secretary of the Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society, Kaligiri, Kaligiri Village and Mandal. The petitioner is the permanent Fair Price Shop Dealer of Shop No.34 of Kaligiri Village, which is a Mandal Head Quarter. It is distributing the essential commodities without any complaint whatsoever either from cardholders or authorities. Whileso, a Notification in Rc.B.3686/2008, dated 01.12.2008 was issued by the 2nd respondent inviting the applications from eligible candidates for grant of authorization for different shops. To his utter surprise, he found that the shop is notified against serial Nos. 12 and 13 as Shop Nos.34A & 34B. In fact, there is only one shop i.e., shop No.34 to which the authorization was granted to the petitioner’s society. After seeing the notification, the petitioner’s society enquired and came to know that the 1st respondent has bifurcated the existing shop No.34 into three shops and created two new shops assigning the numbers of 34A and 34B and thereafter, the 2nd respondent has issued the consequential notification.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order of the 1st respondent is illegal, arbitrary and violative of the principles of natural justice and contrary to the provisions of the G.O.Ms.No.35 Consumer Affairs, Food and Civil Supplies (Cs-1) Department, dated 17.09.2007. The Tahsildar, Jaladanki, who is no way concerned with their Mandal, sent proposal to bifurcate the shop of the petitioner’s society into three and the 2nd respondent has recommended the said proposal and basing on the same, the 1st respondent has bifurcated the shop of the petitioner’s society into three shops. Therefore, the impugned Order is not sustainable. The respondents did not issue any notice to the petitioner’s society before issuing the impugned proceedings. As per G.O.Ms.No.35, dated 17.09.2007, the District Collector shall follow the norms prescribed in the said G.O., while rationalization of FP Shops as the shop of the petitioner’s society is located at Mandal Head Quarter. As per 6 (IV) of G.O.Ms.No.35, dated 17.09.2007, each fair price shop should have a minimum 500 BPL Cards and 250 Pink Cards, but the 1st respondent allocated 468 White Cards, 8 AAY cards, 1 A.P. card and 91 Pink Cards. Therefore, the 1st respondent did not follow the norms prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.35. The shop of the petitioner’s society is located at a distance of three kilometers to the shops that are going to be created is not correct. Therefore, it is clear that the shop of the petitioner’s society is sought to be bifurcated on political reasons but not for the convenience of the public. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner constrained to file the present Writ Petition.

5. The 3rd respondent filed Counter Affidavit contending that the Government in G.O.Ms.No.35 F & Cs (CS-1) Department, dated 17.09.2007 issued orders to rationalize the existing fair price shop under PDS Network. In the said G.O., the Government also

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top