APHC010055372019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH MONDAY, TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 2499/2019 Between: 1. B KESHAVULU, S/O. B. RANGANADHAM, AGED 47 YEARS, R/O. KEELAGARAM VILLAGE (H/W), V.K.PALEM POST, NARAYANAVANAM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT, 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF CIVIL SUPPLIES, VELAGAPUDI, AMRAVATHI 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR CS CHITTOOR DISTRICT, CHITTOOR 4. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER CHITTOOR, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 5. THE TAHSILDAR, NARAYANAVANAM M DISTRICT. Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased topleased to issue an appropriate Writ or Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd Respondent herein in issuing proceedings under D.Dis.(C1) 381/2018 dated 13-12-2018 as illegal, arbitrary, violative IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 2499/2019 B KESHAVULU, S/O. B. RANGANADHAM, AGED 47 YEARS, R/O. KEELAGARAM VILLAGE (H/W), V.K.PALEM POST, NARAYANAVANAM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT, ...PETITIONER AND THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT VELAGAPUDI, AMRAVATHI. THE COMMISSIONER OF CIVIL SUPPLIES, VELAGAPUDI, THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR CS CHITTOOR DISTRICT, CHITTOOR THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER CHITTOOR, CHITTOOR THE TAHSILDAR, NARAYANAVANAM MANDAL, CHITTOOR ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be to issue an appropriate Writ or Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd Respondent herein in issuing proceedings under D.Dis.(C1) 381/2018 2018 as illegal, arbitrary, violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3333] EIGHTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA B KESHAVULU, S/O. B. RANGANADHAM, AGED 47 YEARS, R/O. KEELAGARAM VILLAGE (H/W), V.K.PALEM POST, ...PETITIONER THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FOOD DEPARTMENT VELAGAPUDI, AMRAVATHI. THE COMMISSIONER OF CIVIL SUPPLIES, VELAGAPUDI, THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR CS CHITTOOR DISTRICT, CHITTOOR THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER CHITTOOR, CHITTOOR ANDAL, CHITTOOR ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be to issue an appropriate Writ or Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd Respondent herein in issuing proceedings under D.Dis.(C1) 381/2018 of Articles 14 and 21 of the 2 Constitution of India and the principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the same IA NO: 1 OF 2019 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to suspend the operation of the proceedings of the 3rd respondnet under D.Dis.(C1) 381/2018 dated 13-12-2018 pending disposal of the instant writ petition Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. V VINOD K REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES (AP) The Court made the following: 3 HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION No.2499 of 2019 ORDER: The present Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:- “…. to issue an appropriate Writ or Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rdRespondent herein in issuing proceedings under D.Dis.(C1) 381/2018 dated 13.12.2018 as illegal,arbitrary,violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and the principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the sameand to pass such other order or orders ….” 2. The petitioner was appointed as a permanent fair price shop dealer of Keelagaram Village of Narayanavanam Mandal, by the 4th respondent herein on 23.05.2008. Thereafter, petitioner’s authorization was renewed from time to time, which was valid up to 31.03.2020. Petitioner’s fair price shop was having 525 card holders. The grievance of the petitioner is that, due to some political pressures, the 5th respondent was prevailed upon to address the proceedings bearing Roc.No.A/330/2018, dated Nil.12.2018 to the 4th respondent stating that, as the elders and ill-health card holders of Keelagaram Harijanwada are facing difficulty to collect the essential commodities from the fair price shop of Keelagaram, therefore, requested for a separate fair price shop to be established in the said village by bifurcating the present fair price shop of Keelagaram Village. In response to the same, the 3rd respondent 4 vide impugned order dated 13.12.2018 bearing D.Dis.(C1)/381/2018, bifurcated the petitioner’s fair price shop, duly establishing a new fair price shop by dividing the existing 525 card holders into 216 card holders for the existing fair price shop of the petitioner and 309 card holders for the newly created fair price shop of Keelagaram Harijanwada. Challenging which, the present writ petition was filed by the petitioner. 3. When the writ petition came up for admission, on 07.03.2019, this Court was pleased to pass the following interim order: “In the meanwhile, interim direction, as prayed for.” 4. The said interim order has been extended until further orders on 28.03.2019. 5. Today, when the matter came up for hearing, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies has furnished a copy of the written instructions of the Tahsildar i.e., respondent No.5 herein, wherein, it is stated that in pursuance of the interim orders granted by this Court, the petitioner is running the existing fair price shop. It is also stated that based on the villagers request, bifurcation proposals were submitted to the 4th respondent herein, in the month of December, 2018, proposing for allocation of 216 card to the existing fair price shop and 309 cards to the newly proposed shop and the same was approved by the 3rd respondent herein vide proceedings dated 13.12.2018. 5 6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and as well as learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies representing the respondents. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon G.O.Ms.No.35, Consumer Affairs, Food & Civil Supplies (CS-1) department, dated 17.09.2007 and brought to the notice of this Court, Clause 6 (v), which reads as under: “(v) Rural areas- Each Gram Panchayat (v) should have at least one F.P. shop with a minimum of 400 BPL cards and 50 APL cards in case, there are more number of cards in excess of the minimum number of cards i.e., 400 BPL and 50 APL in a village there can be two FP shops, provided the local number of BPL cards in that village is not less than 600 and the number of BPL and APL cards should be attached to the two fair price shops equally.” 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that though the petitioner’s fair price shop was initially holding 525 card holders, the same was bifurcated by dividing 216 card holders for the existing fair price shop of the petitioner and 309 card holders for the newly created fair price shop, which is contrary to G.O.Ms.No.35 Consumer Affairs, Food & Civil Supplies (CS-1) Department, dated 17.09.2007 as per which, atleast one fair price shop should have maximum of 400 BPL cards and 50 APL cards. As such, he requested to allow the present petition. 6 9. In reply, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies relied upon the judgment passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in writ petition No.27510 of 2024 & batch, dated 06.01.2025. The said batch of writ petitions were filed challenging the proceedings of bifurcation. 10. On a perusal of the judgment relied upon by learned Assistant Government Pleader, it can be seen that the said bifurcation was in pursuance of G.O.Ms.No.10 Consumer Affairs, Food & Civil Supplies (CS-I) Department, dated 03.09.2024, which says that maximum figure for rural area is 450 cards, 550 cards for urban area and 650 cards for corporation area, but, however, the petitioner’s case falls under G.O.Ms.No.35 Consumer Affairs, Food & Civil Supplies (CS-1) Department, dated 17.09.2007. As such, the said judgment is not applicable to the petitioner’s case. 11. As the bifurcation of the card holders of the petitioner’s fair price is contrary to clause 6(v) of G.O.Ms.No.35 Consumer Affairs, Food & Civil Supplies (CS-1) Department, dated 17.09.2007, this Court is deems it appropriate to set-aside the impugned proceedings issued by the 3rd respondent dated 13.12.2018. 12. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed by setting aside the impugned proceedings issued by the 3rd respondent dated 13.12.2018. There shall be no order as to costs. 7 As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Dated: 18.08.2025 MDP