ORDER
M.N. Rao, J.
1. The petitioner was appointed permanently in the year 1981 as fair price shop dealer in respect of Dupadu village, Tripurantakam Mandal, Prakasam district. The Government issued G.O.Rt. No. 951, Food and Agriculture (CS.II) Department, dated 16-5-1988 laying down guidelines for selection and appointment of fair price shop dealers. Paragraph 8(1) of the Guidelines is in the following terms:
“All individuals holding any office in public life like Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, President of Mandal Praja Parishad, President, Co-operative Society, Councillor or Chairman of a Municipality, etc., shall not be eligible to be appointed as fair price shop dealers.”
Doubts were raised as to whether a fair price shop dealer, who subsequently was elected to a public office referred to above, would be liable to be removed. The position was clarified by the Government on 12-7-1988 by issuing Memorandum No. 44345/CS.II/88 advising the Collectors/Chief Rationing Officers in such cases “not to renew the authorisations of those fair price shop dealers who have been elected as Sarpanchas, Municipal Councillors, etc., when such dealers file applications for renewal of authorisations or issue of fresh authorisations in the revised form as per the G.O. second cited.
2. By virtue of the aforesaid memorandum, the Mandal Revenue Officer served an order on the petitioner on 18-7-1988 informing him that as he was elected as Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, supply of essential commodities for distribution through him had been stopped. Challenging the same, the present writ petition was filed.
3. Shri Ravindra Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that guideline 8(1) of G.O.Rt. No. 951 dt. 16-5-1988 renders ineligible persons holding public offices specified therein from being appointed as fair price shop dealers. But that embargo, submits the learned counsel, would not stand in the way of the petitioner who was continuing as a fair price shop dealer. He also says that the Government Memorandum dt. 12-7-1988 advises the authorities not to renew the authorisations of fair price shop dealers of those individuals who subsequently have been elected to the public offices specified in the guideline referred to above.
4. It is true that the Government memorandum dated 12-7-1988 advises the appointing authorities not to renew the authorisations of fair price shop dealers of the individuals, who, subsequent to the date of their appointment, have been elected to public offices. In the normal course, by 1990, the petitioner’s application for renewal would have come up for consideration before the concerned authority and, by virtue of the Government memorandum dt. 12-7-1988, the renewal would have been stopped. But that question becomes academic in the present case since by virtue of the interim direction granted by this Court on 9-9-1989 the petitioner has been continuing till date as an authorised fair price shop dealer.
5. There is valid justification in forbidding holders of elective offices from continuing or from being continued as fair price shop dealers. The Sarpanch of a gram panchayt naturally will have supporters and opponents in the village. If he has to distribute scheduled commodities to the villagers, there is every possibility of his taking a partisan attitude in the matter of distribution. In order to avoid such contingencies and to ensure effective distribution of Government owned scheduled commodities to the cardholders, it was felt that persons holding public offices should not be entrusted with the privilege of their distribution. We, therefore, do not find any merit in the contention advanced by Shri Ravindranath Reddy that prohibiting holders of public offices from continuing or from being appointed as fair price shop dealers is either arbitrary or unreasonable. We may also mention in this context that a Division Bench of this Court in its decision rendered on 23rd April, 1991, in Writ Appeal Nos. 410 and 411 of 1991, while allowing the aforesaid prohibition, observed thus:
“The paramount intention behind the aforesaid condition is that persons holding public offices should maintain highest standards in public life. If they are held to be eligible to be appointed as fair price shop dealers and /or are in fact appointed as such, there is frequent likelihood of conflict of public and private interests. Once coming to hold a public office, private interest must be subservient. This is essential to maintain purity in public life. We find no such infirmity in the aforesaid clause of the Government order as to render it liable to be struck down by this Court in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction. A condition which advances public interest and seeks to maintain purity in public life and also helps to maintain high standards in public life will not be quashed by a writ court. In fact, to do so would be acting against public interest.”
We are in respectful agreement with the above view.
6. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition fails and, accordingly, it is dismissed. The interim direction granted earlier is vacated. No order as to costs. Government Pleader’s fee Rs. 250/-.
