Dismissed

Jaddu Jrishna Reddy v. The Commissioner of Civil Supplies - cum- Ex-officio

Telangana HC6 Dec 2012WP/231/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Constitution Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the reservation pattern for fair price shop dealers. The court held that due to a shortfall of reserved category members, allotment to the open category was legal and the notification warranted no interference.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed as it was deemed to be devoid of merits.

Jaddu Jrishna Reddy Vs The Commissioner of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.231 of 2011

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

This Writ Petition is filed questioning the notification issued by the Sub-Collector-the third respondent vide R.C.F.No.9/2011, dated 01.01.2011, inviting applications to fill up the vacancies of fair price shop dealers in various villages of Kandukur Revenue Division, Prakasam District.

¶4

Petitioner No.1 is a resident of Cheruvukommuipalem Village, petitioner Nos.2 and 4 are residents of Ponnalur Village, petitioner No.3 is a resident of K.Agraharam and petitioner No.5 is a resident of Rajolepadu Village of Kandukur Revenue Division, Prakasam District. All the petitioners are ration card holders in their respective Villages.

¶5

The fair price shop at Cheruvukommuipalem Village is reserved for Scheduled Tribes, the fair price shop at Ponnalur is reserved for Physically Handicapped persons and the fair price shops at K.Agraharam and Rajolepadu Villages are reserved for Backward Classes.

¶6

The impugned notification is mainly questioned on the ground that the fair price shops at the aforesaid Villages are reserved illegally and contrary to the guide lines issued by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.52, Consumer Affairs, Food and Civil Supplies Department, 18.12.2008.

¶7

On behalf of the respondents, a detailed counteraffidavit is filed denying the various allegations made by the petitioners. It is stated that in Kandukur revenue division, there are total number of 747 fair price shops and reservation pattern is strictly followed as per the guidelines issued by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.52. It is further stated that in said revenue division, 15% are

¶8

reserved for Scheduled Castes, 6% for Scheduled Tribes, 3% for Physically handicapped, 25% for backward classes and 30% for women. In respect of the villages in which the petitioners are residents, there is a shortfall in all the categories and as such, the fair price shops were allotted in favour of persons of Open category.

¶9

Though it is the allegation of the petitioners that the fair price shops in their respective villages are reserved illegally, but on a perusal of the figures given in the counter-affidavit, it is evident that since there is a shortfall of members belonging to various reserved categories as against the percentage of reservation allotted to them, the remaining shops were allotted to the persons of the Open category and as such, they have already been over represented.

¶10

In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that the impugned notification issued by respondent No.3 reserving the fair price shops in respect of various categories for the villages in question is illegal. As no other question arises for consideration, I do not find any merit in this Writ Petition warranting interference by this Court.

¶11

The Writ Petition is devoid of merits and is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶12

_______________________ JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY

¶13

06^th December 2012 DR

Jaddu Jrishna Reddy v. The Commissioner of Civil Supplies - cum- Ex-officio

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jaddu Jrishna Reddy v. The Commissioner of Civil Supplies - cum- Ex-officio

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s Jairaj Ispat Limited, Vs The Central Power Distribution Company of

U. Naga Raju Vs The District Collector.

M/s Minopharm Laboratories Pvt. Ltd., Vs The Managing Director

Guntur Venkateswarlu Vs Joint Collector

G. Revathi, Vs A.P.S.R.T.C

Mother Theresa Dwacra Group, rep.by Vs STate of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by Secretary