K SREENIVASULU NAIDU Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR CHITTOOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents No.1 to 4 in bifurcating the shop No. 58 of Mangalam Village without notice and consequential appointment of 5th respondent as illegal and violative of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) The facts of the case, in nutshell are: That the Petitioner is a resident of Mangalam Complex. He was appointed as Fair Price Shop dealer on 9-9-1985 for the F.P. Shop No. 58 and he has been conducting business without any complaint whatsoever. The shop consists of 794 cards, out of which 665 are rice cards and 129 are sugar cards. Whileso, in the month of June, 1995 the petitioner came to know the Shop No.58 was bifurcated and a new shop at Basavatharakam village was constituted, thereby deleting 407 cards from the shop of the Petitioner. The Petitioner submits that the bifurcation has adversely effected his livelihood. On 7-7-1995 he approached the 2nd respondent where he was given only partial stocks, excluding the cards bifurcated. The Petitioner submits that deletion of the cards without notice is illegal and violative of principles of natural justice.

(3.) The 5th respondent filed counter-affidavit denying various allegations made by the petitioner. She submits that the Petitioner has suppressed the material facts and approached this Court with a view to obtain undue advantage of the situation. She further submits mat a notification was issued by the authorities on 24-6-1993 creating Fair Price shop for Basavatharakam Village, bifurcating the same from Mangalam Village Fair Price Shop No.58 and a notification was issued for filling up the vacancy. Accordingly notification was issued on 1-02-1993 calling for the applications and interviews were held on 8-7-1993. Out of five candidates appeared for the interviewed, the 5th respondent was selected. However, the residents of the village filed an objection that proper publicity was not given and the selection should be conducted after proper notice. Accordingly the 3rd respondent issued re-notification on 1-12-1993. Aggrieved by the said re-notification the 5th respondent filed an appeal to the Joint Collector. The Joint Collector rejected the appeal against which the 5th respondent filed a revision before the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent by his orders dated 21-7-1994 allowed the revision petition and directed the 3rd respondent to appoint the F.P. Shop dealer as per the interviews already held. Pursuant to the said proceed ings, the 3rd respondent issued orders on 10-5-1995 appointing the 5th respondent as P.P. Shop dealer in respect of Basavatharakam Village, who was selected in the interviews held on 12-7-1993. Accordingly she paid the deposit and obtained the authorisation. Consequently she was being supplied with the essential commodities to the extent of cards allotted to Basavatharakam Village Fair Price Shop. The Petitioner filed a Writ Petition challenging the bifurcation of his Fair Shop No. 58.