The High Court · 2025

Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circrtmstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondent No.6 herein to consider the representrlion of the petitioner dated 12-5-2025 to re-examine and allot 300 Foods supply Srlrds to him in terms ofG.o.RT.No.55,dated12-5-2ol'pendingdisposalofth€.writpetition. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRt T.MAHENDER RAO Counsel for the Respondent Nos.'l to 5 : GP FOR CIVIL SUPoLIES Counsel for the Respondent Nos.6 & 7 : SRI M'V'HANUMAN fHA RAO The Court made the following ORDER ! I t I I 1 i I I I I I I i. I I i t { i I THE HONOT]RABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MADHAVI DEVI \ryRIT PETITION NO .20398 0F 2025 REDRo In this Writ Petition, the petitioner is challenging the proceedings No.B/15/2024 dt.30.04.2025 issued by the 3'd respondent taking away 280 Food Security Cards from the petitioner and giving them to the 6th respondent without any notice to the petitioner and without conducting any enquiry and also the inaction of the otficial respondents in rationalizing and allotting 300 Food Security cards to the petitioner, as illegal, arbitrary and in viotation ol principles of natural justice and consequently to direct the officiat respondents to rationalize and allot 300 Food Security Cards to the petitioner in terms ol G O'Rt'No'55, Consumer Affairs, Food & Civil Supplies (CSI-CCIS) Department, dt.12.05.2015 and to pass such other order or orders'

2. Brief facts leading to rhe filing the prescnt writ Petition are that the petitioner was appoinred as a dealer of lrair Price Shop No.3612041 situated at Markandeya Cotony, Godavarikhani, Ramagundam Manda[' peddapalli District on 26.06.2009 aud the petitioner claims to be running the said shop without any complaints so far. lt is submitted that W.l' N,r.20398 of 2025 2 subsequently the petitioner was appointed as incharlie dealer of Fair Price Shop No.3612054 sitauted at Annapuma Colory, NTpC since the dealer of thc said shop, i.e., the 7th respondent hrs becorne sick. However, aftcr recovery, the 7th respondent submitte(l ln application on

05.05.2025 to reinstate her as dealer of Fair Price Sho I No.3612054.

3. It is subntitted that in the year 2015, the rlicvemmenr issued G.O.Rt.No.55 dt. 12.05.2015 for rationalisation of rhe cards fixing the lirnit of 800 ro 1000 cards within Corporation limits lbr rhc economic viability, of thc fair price shops. The petitioner frirc 6(10 cards and thcrefbre, he submitted an application to rationalize irnd allot a roral of' 1000 cards vidL, letter dt.25.11.2024.In view thereof, ,hc 3"r respondenr, vltlc letter dt.07.(t3.2025, directed respondents 4 and 5 ro firr.nish thc list ol'-300 Food Sccurity Cards to be moved to the pe,.itioncr's tair price shop and on 21.03.2025 the 4th respondent requested tf e -5'r' respondent to send the list of 300 Food Security Cards to .,r nror ed ro the petitioner's shop. In response thereto, on 24.03.2025. rlc -5'r'respondenr f urnished the list of 300 Food Security Cards to rc rnor cd ro the petitioner's shop lrom the fair price shop of the 6th rc;pondcrrt who has alreadv a total of' 1380 cards. Aggrieved by the same, :hc (r'r' rcspondent flled W.P.No. 101 l4 of 2025 and this Court dispose,.l ol'thc said Writ W.P.No.2039E of 2025 3 Petition directing the respondents therein to consider the representation of the 6h respondent herein that several of the card holders of his Fair Price Shop have either died or shifted from the locality and therefore, the cards with the 6h respondent herein would be less than the required number of cards under G.O.Rt.No.5S dt.12.05.2015. The 6rh respondenr was permitted to make a representation to this effect. On 28.04.2025, the 6'h respondent made a representation to the official respondents and on

30.04.2025, the 3'd respondent has passed an order restoring 280 Food Security Cards to the 6th respondent from the petitioner's Fair price Shop No.3612041. It is submitted rhar on 12.05.2025, the petitioner submitted a representation to rationalize and allot cards in terms of G.O.Rt.No.55 dt.12.05.2015, but the official respondcnts failed to consider the same. Therefore, the present Writ Petition is tl led.

4. Leamed counsel for the petitioner, rvhile reiterating the submissions made in the writ affrdavit, submitted that the 6'h respondent had represented before this Court in the earlier Writ Petition in W.P.No.10414 of 2025 that there were several card holders who have either died or shifted from their places and theretbre, number of such cards would have to be reduced and he sought an opportunity to make his submissions with regard to the cards and it was in these \ W. F.N o.20398 of 2025 4 circumstances that this court has permitted the 6th reslrcndent to make a representation. He submitted that the 6ft respondent lras rrot made any such represerration, but had only represented that he is suffering from cancer and therefbre, all the cards should be retairred with him. It is ,l stated that thc official respondents also, withorr considering the directions ol tlris court, have accepted the contentio.u of the petitioner and have revt:ned 280 cards proposed to be shifted lio n the shop of the 6'h respondcrrr to the petitioner's shop. He subtrrirted that the 6,h respondent is .nlv harping on 843 cards transferred .o the petitioner as incharge arranqe ment and he submitted that wher t re said incharge arrangenlent rrould be cancelled, the petitioner woulrl be left with onl1, 660 cards. I Ic rhe'refbre prayed that the impugned ord:r be set aside and consequently rlrc oltlcial respondents be directed to re-r llot 2g0 cards or 300 cards liorr thc shop of the 6th respondent to the pelitioner's shop. It is subnritted rh.r rhc 6'h respondent is having l3g0 czrrls and therefbre. even if 300 ca.ds are removed, the 6th respondent v,culd be teft with more than I000 cards and no prejudice would be caused to him.

5. Learncd (iovernrnent pleader for Civil Supp ir:s has obtained wrrtten instructions, according to which, pursuan, to the inrerinr direction of rhis C-'ourt in this case, to take a decision on the W.P.No.20398 of2025 5 representation of the petitioner df.l2-05.2025, the Tahsildar, Ramagundam was directed to fumish the list of ration cards to be added to the Fair Price Shop of the petitioner duly identiffing the suitable fair price shops in terms of G.O.Ms.No.55 dt.12.05.2015 and that the Tahsildar, Ramagundam, vide Lr.N0212025 dt.05 08'2025' has submitted proposals to rationalize the Food Security cards to be added to the petitioner's Fair Price Shop from Fair Price Shop No'3612013 in order to comply with the requirements in G.O.Rt'No'ss dt'l2'05'2015' A tist of such cards is also filed along with the written instructions'

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submitted that the said proceedings are issued without any notice to the dealer ol the Fair Price Shop No.3612013 and if the said person challenges the samc in r. iolation ol principles of natural justice, the said allotment is also likety to be stayed by this Court and the petitioner would again be left with 660 cards only. He submitted that the impugned orders are therefore rcquired to be set aside and the earlier proceedings in letter No.Dl/416/2024 dt.21.03.2025 proposing to transfer 300 cards from the 6'h respondent's shop should be restored. I/ W.r N r.20398 of2025 6

7. The 6th respondent has also hled a counter affi<lavit supporting the impugned order and further stated that the petitioner i ; also having g43 cards of the incharge shop and therefore, a total o: 1503 cards are available with the peritioner as against only 1380 cerds with the 6th respondent and therefore. there is no cause of actiol for the petitioner for filing the present Writ Petition.

8. Having regard to the rival contentions and the naterial on record, this Court tlnds that the petitioner has been all,ttted 660 cards independently. He has also been placed as incharge ri:e.ler for Fair price Shop No.3612054 w,ith 843 cards. However, liom the leuer dt.05.05.2025, the dealcr ol the said shop has alre,aly submitted an application lor reinstatemcnt and the official responde nts are required to take a decision thereon. [n thc rneantime, in order to comply with the directions of thc (iovernrnenr under G.O.Rt.No.ss il.12.05.2015, the exercise of rationalizarion to transfer certain car.ds from the 6th respondent's shop to thc shop of the petitioner has been taken up. When the same was challenged in w.p.No. r04r4 of 2025, this court had taken itqo consideration the contcntion of the 6th respondent h,:rein that certain cards would have to be reduced liorn the total numhr:r of allotment on W.P.No.2039E of 2025 7 account of death of the card holders or shifting of their residences and purely on the basis of the said contention, this Court had directed the respondents in w.P.No. I0414 of 2025 to consider the representation of the petitioner therein, i.e., the 6m respondent herein. However, this Court finds that the 6'h respondent herein has not made any representation befbre the authorities and has only taken a plea of ill-health, i.e., suffering from cancer. This Court does not appreciate the approach of the 6tt' respondent in this regard. The offrcial respondents also have not considercd the said represenratior/plea in the light of the directions of this Court in W.P.No. I 04 14 of 2025 and hav€ accepted the contention of the 6'h respondent without any basis.

9. As rightly pointed out by the leamed counsel for the petitioner \ herein, thcre is no exemption given from the application of G.O.Rt.No.55 dt. I2.05.2015 forpersons suffering from any disease. The oflicial respondents therefore ought to have proceeded with movenrent of 300 cards ro the petitioner's shop when ttre 66 respondent has not provided the derails of the persons who have either died or shifted fiom the said locality. This Court had granted interim suspension ol the proposal till the representation of the petitioner therein was to be considered. This Court finds that evenvide the orders dt.23.04.2025 in I I W.P.N(,.20398 of 2025 8 W.P.No.104l4 of 2025, the order issued vrZe the Collector (CS), Peddapalli proceedings dt.L6.04.2025 for rationalizetion/shifting of Food Security Cards from the shop of the 6'h responderrt to the shop of the petitioner is only suspended. Therefore, the impugned order dt.30.04.2025 is set aside and the official respondents irre directed to shift 300 cards iiom the fair price shop olthe 6th respo-r<lent to the fair price shop of the petitioner and the entire exercise shatl be completed within a period of two weeks lrom thc date ol receipt c,f a copy of this order.

10. The Writ Petition is accordinglv allowed. No orde..irs to costs.

11. Pending rniscellaneous pcririons, if any, in this Writ Petition shall I/TRUE COPY// l\sbrs \, \ \\r' I sD/-u. SUDHA / IANT REGISTRAR / ;ECTION OFFICER Food and Civil The Principal Secretary, Department of Consumer\{ffairt;, Suoolies. Secretariat, State of Telangana at Hyderabad ifri!'Commissioner of Civil Supplies, Government of Tele n The District Collector (CS), Peddapalli. Peddapalli District' The Revenue Divisional Officer, Peddapalli. Peddapalli Clis The Tahsildar, Ramagundam, Peddapalli District. rwo cti io cp FoR"ctvtl suppltES, High court for rire State of Telangana at Hvderabad. IOUTI One'CC to SRI'T.MAHENDER RAO, Advocate IOPUCI On" CC to SRI M.V.HANUMANTHA RAO, Advocate (Ot']l''C) Two CD Copies 3ana, Hyderabad. ,trict. stand closed. To 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8I SA LS HIGH COURT DATED:1310812025 t) ." 1:r $tI ?ffi5 ',.. r , ORDER WP.No.20398 of 2025 ALLOWING THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. ?A- 4r a(5 1