MANDA VISWESWARA RAO Vs. D VENKATESWARA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These Writ Appeals are filed by certain kerosene hawkers, seven in number, and directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 14-11-2000 in Writ Petition Nos. 7831 and 7832 of 1996. By the order under appeal, the learned Single Judge, placing reliance on the judgment of another learned Judge of this Court in Writ Petition Nos. 9203 and 13134 of 1995 and 820 of 1994 dated 18-3-1996, disposed of the Writ Petitions directing the respondent- authorities to supply kerosene to the card holders through the petitioners (authorised Fair Price Shop dealers) in terms of the policy decision of the Government contained in G.O.Rt.No. 479, Food and Agriculture (C.S.IV) Department, dated 19-4-1983, the Circular Lr.No. B2/934/GT dated 1-1-1987 issued by the Commissioner of Civil Supplies, Hyderabad and the Government Memo No. 1584/CS.II/94 Food and Civil Supplies (CS) Department, dated 26-4-1994 and also in the light of the judgment of the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 9203 of 1995 and batch dated 18-3-1996. Hence these Writ Appeals by the aggrieved kerosene hawkers assailing the validity and correctness of the order of the learned Single Judge.

(2.) Sri B. Adinarayana Rao, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, would contend that the directions issued by the learned Single Judge are ex-fade illegal and such directions could not have been issued. Learned counsel would maintain that there is no bar for the respondent-authorities to grant licences to the kerosene hawkers to distribute kerosene to the consumers and on the other hand, G.O.Rt.No. 479 dated 19-4-1983, the Circular dated 1-1-1987 and the Government Memo dated 26-4-1994 themselves clearly indicate that the respondent-authorities are vested with necessary power to grant licences to the kerosene hawkers also. On the other hand, Sri P.R. Prasad, learned Counsel appearing for the authorised Fair Price Shop dealers would contend that the instructions contained in the above G.O.Rt.No. 479, the circular and the Government Memo clearly go to show that the respondent-authorities wanted to di'scontinue the licensing of kerosene hawkers and distribute kerosene to the cardholders through authorised Fair Price Shop dealers and in that view of the matter, no exception can be taken to the directions issued by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 9203 of 1995 dated 18-3-1996.

(3.) We find considerable' force in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants. Before considering the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellants, the reliefs sought in the Writ Petitions be noted. The relief sought in Writ Petition No. 7831 of 1996 is as follows: "Petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus directing the respondents herein to supply the kerosene to the card holders only through fair price shop dealers including the petitioners." The relief sought in Writ Petition No. 7832 of 1996 is as follows: "Petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus directing the respondents herein to supply the kerosene to the card holders only through Fair Price Shop dealers including the petitioners."