IN THE RICH CQUT CF KRNTC4 T 3LO?.-E DTD THIS THz 8TH LW OF JUNE 1998 BEFORE FHE HDN’BLE MR.JU3TICE !-4,DTTU 1RiT PETITION NO.16341 OF 1998 BETdN: Sri • Sri riiv s, S/o Charmayecre Gowca 1 aged 38 years, R/at Muthuryana Hosahalli, Hareenahalli Posts Hunsur Tq. Mysore District, ,,,Petitiner (y SriM.Viswajit Rai & K,3udarsan,v, for Petr. Tie Dy, Commissioner, eDt. of Food & Civil SdDolies. Mysor D St jot, ysore. ,Responderit —2— Ant Petition filed Under Articles 226 & 2P7 of the Cnnstitution of t ndia with an Affidavit preying to Declare the action of the resoondent in issuing Notification dt. 16e3-’98 vide 4nnex.5 or the respondent is in violati.of law. & etc. ‘mit Petition is Coming on for Preliminary Hearing this dv, the court mede the followings Petitioner is a licensee dealing in food yrains. H’ is before this Court mainly quest ioning the notificition issued by the D?f%t 9tp’t .Ini. 4 Ccnnissnner, 14p. of Food & Civil Supplies, Mysore dted.l6—3—9. 3y the said notification he has called the interested persona to ap dy f r licence to deal in ‘ood q ains in a particular v 1 lae. Learned counsel appearing for the petLt ar’ vtiiementlv contends before this Cart that tne repon ent author!fl beto e iscui ng he impugned . . . 3 notification should have held an encuiry as to whether the petitioner is properly cond ucting the fair price shop 8 Nextly he contends that if one more licence is qranted to some other person nursuant to the not— fication dated,l6—3—99 petitioner wld be put to irreparable loss: and substantial injury since he would be left with lesser number of ration cards. $e are at the stane of notification. Respondent authorities are of the view that one more licence should be granted to a person to deal in food grains under the Ess..ntial dommodities..Act in respect of Hareena— halli village, For that purpose they havefnvited apolications, That notification must have been issued after taking into consideration the need for one mvre fair price depot in respect of Harenahally village of Hunsur taluk, A.suming that the authority has not followed :proper procedure, the aggrieved persons including the petitioner can definitely questlon the procedure 8 8 8 4 —4— adopted oy th respon ent authori ty after finalisatin of tenders before the apropr— iate for, In this view of the mattar, the first contention raised by learned cnse1 for oetitioner has no merit and accordingly it is rejectea, In so far as the second contention is concerned, petitioner cannot claf-n that he alone is entitled to be in business, Pursuant to the notificatton he also can file his tender and request the autboritins *0 qran him the licance to deal with food grains. Xt:thi5 stne it c3noot be said that the respondent authoritie 5 are going to issue licence to some othr person leaving the netitioner, Fven this contention according to me has no merit wnatsoever. Accordinal: it is rejected. F r tie easons tated this writ petitions rejected without reference to the resoondents, Or’ered a ordingly, COPY Sd/ KR P Ascstftflt Per%r1t a. dz C t “a skar,by; \,>- Ban a c.by;