ORDER : This Writ Petition has been filed by the Petitioner seeking the following relief : “to declare the order of the 1st respondent issued in Rc.E.1036/2008, dated 07.11.2008 bifurcating the fair price of shop of the petitioner i.e., FP shop No.34 of Kaligiri Village and Mandal, SPS Nellore District into three shops as illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice and contrary to the provisions of G.O.Ms.No.35, Consumer Affairs, Food and Civil Supplies (CS-1) Department, dated 17.09.2007 and also declare the consequential notification issued by the 2nd respondent in Rc.B.3686/2008, dated 01.12.2008, calling for the applications for grant of authorization insofar as serial Nos. 12 and 13 of the said notification i.e., FP shop Nos. 34-A and 34-B of Kaligiri as bad in law and set aside the same.” 2. Heard Sri V. Sudhakar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies and perused the record. 3. The case of the petitioner is that he is the Secretary of the Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society, Kaligiri, Kaligiri Village and Mandal. The petitioner is the permanent Fair Price Shop Dealer of Shop No.34 of Kaligiri Village, which is a Mandal Head Quarter. It is distributing the essential commodities without any complaint whatsoever either from cardholders or authorities. Whileso, a Notification in Rc.B.3686/2008, dated 01.12.2008 was issued by the 2nd respondent inviting the applications from eligible candidates for grant of authorization for different shops. To his utter surprise, he found that the shop is notified against serial Nos. 12 and 13 as Shop Nos.34A & 34B. In fact, there is only one shop i.e., shop No.34 to which the authorization was granted to the petitioner’s society. After seeing the notification, the petitioner’s society enquired and came to know that the 1st respondent has bifurcated the existing shop No.34 into three shops and created two new shops assigning the numbers of 34A and 34B and thereafter, the 2nd respondent has issued the consequential notification. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order of the 1st respondent is illegal, arbitrary and violative of the principles of natural justice and contrary to the provisions of the G.O.Ms.No.35 Consumer Affairs, Food and Civil Supplies (Cs-1) Department, dated 17.09.2007. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order of the 1st respondent is illegal, arbitrary and violative of the principles of natural justice and contrary to the provisions of the G.O.Ms.No.35 Consumer Affairs, Food and Civil Supplies (Cs-1) Department, dated 17.09.2007. The Tahsildar, Jaladanki, who is no way concerned with their Mandal, sent proposal to bifurcate the shop of the petitioner’s society into three and the 2nd respondent has recommended the said proposal and basing on the same, the 1st respondent has bifurcated the shop of the petitioner’s society into three shops. Therefore, the impugned Order is not sustainable. The respondents did not issue any notice to the petitioner’s society before issuing the impugned proceedings. As per G.O.Ms.No.35, dated 17.09.2007, the District Collector shall follow the norms prescribed in the said G.O., while rationalization of FP Shops as the shop of the petitioner’s society is located at Mandal Head Quarter. As per 6 (IV) of G.O.Ms.No.35, dated 17.09.2007, each fair price shop should have a minimum 500 BPL Cards and 250 Pink Cards, but the 1st respondent allocated 468 White Cards, 8 AAY cards, 1 A.P. card and 91 Pink Cards. Therefore, the 1st respondent did not follow the norms prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.35. The shop of the petitioner’s society is located at a distance of three kilometers to the shops that are going to be created is not correct. Therefore, it is clear that the shop of the petitioner’s society is sought to be bifurcated on political reasons but not for the convenience of the public. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner constrained to file the present Writ Petition. 5. The 3rd respondent filed Counter Affidavit contending that the Government in G.O.Ms.No.35 F & Cs (CS-1) Department, dated 17.09.2007 issued orders to rationalize the existing fair price shop under PDS Network. In the said G.O., the Government also issued norms for allotment of cards to each shop. In the said G.O., the Government imposed a condition that opening of a new FP shop should be within one kilometre radius of the residence of the cardholders. At present, the cardholders of the petitioner’s society have to reach the shop after taking a journey of 3 Kms. In the said G.O., the Government imposed a condition that opening of a new FP shop should be within one kilometre radius of the residence of the cardholders. At present, the cardholders of the petitioner’s society have to reach the shop after taking a journey of 3 Kms. As the cardholders are facing difficulties in drawing the essential commodities from the shop of the petitioner’s society, which is away from and the existing shop is also having more than 1600 card holders, the shop No.34 is bifurcated into three shops. Thereafter, proposals were submitted to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kavali, vide Rc.B.No.262/2008, dated 05.05.2008. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kavali, in turn submitted the said proposals to the respondent No.1/ the District Collector. Thereupon, the District Collector vide Proceedings in Rc.B.No.1036/2008, dated 07.11.2008, accepted the said proposals and issued proceedings bifurcating the Kaligiri Fair Price Shop into three shops as Shop Nos. 34, 34-A and 34-B. Basing on the said Proceedings, the respondent No.2 issued Notification vide Proceedings in Rc.B.3686/2008, dated 01.12.2008, inviting applications from the interested persons. 6. He further contends that the Notification issued by the respondent No.2 is in accordance with the instructions issued by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.35, dated 17.09.2007 and therefore, there is no any violation of any instructions. The newly created shop Nos. 34-A and 34-B are located in seven hamlet villages, which are 3 kms away to the present shop No.34 situated at Kaligiri. A typographical mistake has occurred in the said proceedings mentioning that the Tahsildar, Jaladanki, submitted proposals to the Revenue Divisional Officer. In fact, the Tahsildar, Kaligiri, has alone submitted proposals to the Revenue Divisional Officer and therefore, the typographical mistake need not be taken into consideration. The Order dated 07.11.2008 issued by the respondent No.1 is in accordance with the instructions laid down in G.O.Ms.No.35, dated 17.09.2007 and there is no violation at all as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Therefore, the Writ Petition deserves no consideration at all and as such, he prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition. 7. Having heard the submissions of the respective counsel and upon perusing the material available on record, it appears, the main grievance of the petitioner is that, Fair Price Shop No.34 of Kaligiri Village and Mandal, SPSR Nellore is bifurcated contrary to the provisions of G.O.Ms.No.35, Consumer Affairs, Food and Civil Supplies (CS-1) Department, dated 17.09.2007. 8. 7. Having heard the submissions of the respective counsel and upon perusing the material available on record, it appears, the main grievance of the petitioner is that, Fair Price Shop No.34 of Kaligiri Village and Mandal, SPSR Nellore is bifurcated contrary to the provisions of G.O.Ms.No.35, Consumer Affairs, Food and Civil Supplies (CS-1) Department, dated 17.09.2007. 8. Originally, the petitioner is running the fair price shop, which is having 1424 White Cards, 84 A.A.Y Cards, 02 A.P Cards and 145 Pink Cards. By impugned proceedings, the first respondent created two new shops bearing Nos.34-A & 34-B and allocated 468 White Cards, 08 A.A.Y Cards, 01 A.P Cards and 91 Pink Cards to the petitioner’s existing shop and allocated 499 White Cards, 40 A.A.Y Cards, 00 A.P Cards and 19 Pink Cards to the newly created Shop No.34-A and allocated 457 White Cards, 36 A.A.Y Cards, 01 A.P Cards and 35 Pink Cards to the newly created Shop No.34-B. 9. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, as per the norms prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.35, Consumer Affairs, Food and Civil Supplies (CS-1) Department, dated 17.09.2007, there shall be minimum of 500 BPL cards and 250 Pink cards to each fair price shop. As such, the decision of the first respondent to retain only 468 White Cards and 91 Pink Cards to the petitioner’s shop is in clear violation of G.O.Ms.No.35 dated 17.09.2007. 10. The contention of the learned Government Pleader appearing for the fourth respondent is that, in G.O.Ms.No.35 dated 17.09.2007, there is a condition that, the fair price shop should be located within 1 km radius of the residence of the cardholders. He contends that, at present, the cardholders attached to the petitioner’s fair price shop has to reach the shop after taking a journey of 3 Kms. As the cardholders are facing difficulties in drawing the commodities from the petitioner’s shop and the existing shop is also having more than 1655 cards, it is decided to bifurcate the existing shop into three shops and as such there is no infirmity in the order passed by the first respondent. 11. As the cardholders are facing difficulties in drawing the commodities from the petitioner’s shop and the existing shop is also having more than 1655 cards, it is decided to bifurcate the existing shop into three shops and as such there is no infirmity in the order passed by the first respondent. 11. On careful examination of G.O.Ms.No.35 dated 17.09.2007, it appears that, the Government after careful consideration of the matter, ordered for rationalization of existing fair price shops in the State by attaching the required number of cards to each shops for convenience of the cardholders in the locality and keeping in view the economic viability of the fair price shop. As per the instructions prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.35 dated 17.09.2007, the number of Iris based cards to be attached to each fair price shop in Municipalities and erstwhile Taluk Headquarters is 500 to 550 BPL and 250 Pink Cards. In the process of rationalization of the fair price, it is prescribed that, opening of a fair price shop within one kilometre radius of the residence of the cardholder shall be scrupulously followed. 12. On perusal of the record, it appears, in the present case, the cardholders have to reach the present fair price shop No.34 after taking a journey of 3 Kms. It is also an admitted fact that, 1655 cards attached to the petitioner’s shop are scattered in 7 Hamlets of Kaligiri Village. As the petitioner’s shop is allotted 1655 cards, which is more than the cards to be attached as per the instructions issued in G.O.Ms.No.35 dated 17.09.2007, considering all these aspects, in the interest of the cardholders, the first respondent issued proceedings to bifurcate the existing fair price shop into three shops. 13. The fair price shops are established in the interest of the cardholders. The paramount consideration in establishing fair price shop is for smooth distribution of the essential commodities under public distribution system. Considering this aspect, the State Government issued certain instructions in G.O.Ms.No.35 dated 17.09.2007 requesting all the District Collectors to reorganize by creating new fair price shops wherever necessary, keeping in view the instructions issued in the said G.O. 14. The paramount consideration in establishing fair price shop is for smooth distribution of the essential commodities under public distribution system. Considering this aspect, the State Government issued certain instructions in G.O.Ms.No.35 dated 17.09.2007 requesting all the District Collectors to reorganize by creating new fair price shops wherever necessary, keeping in view the instructions issued in the said G.O. 14. Though it is prescribed in the said G.O that the number of Iris based ration cards to be attached to each fair price shop located in erstwhile Taluk Headquarters is 500-550 BPL and 250 Pink Cards, considering the further norms prescribed in the same G.O, wherein, it is stated that, opening of a fair price shop within one kilometre radius of the residence of the cardholder shall be scrupulously followed, in our view, the first respondent has to follow the norm to establish fair price shop within one kilometre radius of the residence of the cardholders, and it has to be considered in the interest of the cardholders. 15. In the present case, after bifurcation of the existing shop into three shops, the petitioner’s shop No.34 is allotted 468 White Cards, 08 A.A.Y Cards, 01 A.P. and 91 Pink Cards, in total 565 cards. Considering the same, though there is a small shortfall in allotting white cards, in view of the fact that the existing fair price shop is 3 Kms away to the residence of the cardholders residing in 7 Hamlet villages and considering their difficulties to draw essential commodities from the existing shop which is located 3 Kms away from their villages, in our considered view, the proceedings issued by the first respondent in Rc.E.No.1036/2008 dated 07.11.2008 is in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.35 dated 17.09.2007 and as such, there is no illegality or arbitrary action on the part of the first respondent. 16. For the above stated reasons, in the considered opinion of this Court, there are no merits in the writ petition warranting interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and it is liable to be dismissed. 17. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. 18. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this case shall stand closed.