JUDGMENT K.C. Agrawal and V.K. Khanna, JJ. - The petitioner is a primary co-operative society registered under the U.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965. The Society is located in the town of Gorakhpur. It was incorporated in 1976. One of the objects of the society, according to the petitioner, was to make essential commodities and scarce goods available to the public at a fair price. For this purpose, the petitioner had been appointed retail distributor for the distribution of the Government foodgrains, kerosene oil and sugar under the relevant Control Orders issued under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, from time to time. 2. In the year 1979, the petitioner entered into an agreement. This agreement expired in November 1980. To enable itself to get the foodgrains, the petitioner alleges that the society executed a fresh agreement in November, 1980. It may, however, be noted here that according to the petitioner, although an agreement had been executed, but the same was not required to be done by it for availing the right of distribution under the relevant Control Orders issued under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. 3. The petitioner alleges that on 18-12-1980 the Government of U.P. formulated a policy in regard to the allotment of foodgrains to the fair price shops Under this policy, the State Government decided to cancel the allotment of fair price shops in favour of individuals. The further decision was that the distribution of the Government foodgrains, kerosene oil, sugar and other commodities had to be made only through co-operative societies. The petitioner has filed a copy or the policy as Annexure 'II'. This policy laid down that there were some co-operative societies already working for the said purpose and they would be permitted to continue. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite the formulation of a policy for the distribution of foodgrains through co-operative societies, the respondents took the view that the petitioner society was not entitled to continue as a retail dealer and, as such the respondents stopped supplying the foodgrains to the petitioner society. As the petitioner felt aggrieved by the unauthorised action of the respondents, its Chairman Wrote a letter to the City Magistrate, Gorakhpur, on 1-1-1981. No heed was given to the request of the petitioner. As the petitioner felt aggrieved by the unauthorised action of the respondents, its Chairman Wrote a letter to the City Magistrate, Gorakhpur, on 1-1-1981. No heed was given to the request of the petitioner. The petitioner, thereafter, filed a writ petition claiming that the action of not appointing the petitioner as a retail dealer for the distribution of Government foodgrains and sugar was unauthorised and illegal. The respondents acted against the policy of the Government by cancelling only 104 individual allottees of fair price shops to the co-operative societies. The main ground taken by the petitioner was that as it was also a co-operative society, it had to be treated alike and could not be discriminated by not being supplied the foodgrains for being sold through its shop. 4. On the writ petition being filed before us on 6-7-1981, we gave time to the Standing Counsel to file a counter-affidavit and fixed 13-7-1981 for the said purpose. Neither was any counter-affidavit filed nor was the record produced. We, therefore, heard the counsel for both the parties and decided to finally dispose of the petition. 5. From the facts stated above, it appears that the policy of the Government was to get the foodgrain distributed through co-operative societies. The petitioner is a co-operative society. There is no reason given by the respondents for having not allotted the foodgrains to the petitioner society for distribution. The Government may have a right to choose a particular mode for the supply of its own articles and goods, but once the Government has chosen a particular mode for the said purpose, it has no night to act arbitrarily by picking up a few and not considering the Cites of others. If the States refusal to enter into a contract is based on reasonable grounds, as they are under stood in law. it may not be discriminatory. It, however, does not enjoy the light to choose its own suppliers after having decided to adopt a particular manner in accordance with which the supplies had to be made. The petitioner was entitled for consideration of its case fairly and honestly. As this has not been done in this case, the petitioner is entitled a Writ of Mandamus requiring respondents to consider the prayer for the allotment of foodgrains for being sold through its. 6. The petitioner was entitled for consideration of its case fairly and honestly. As this has not been done in this case, the petitioner is entitled a Writ of Mandamus requiring respondents to consider the prayer for the allotment of foodgrains for being sold through its. 6. Counsel for the State pointed out that the petitioner must have been found unsuitable, and that was the reason for not having appointed the petitioner as a retail distributor. We have nothing before us to accept the submission of the Standing Counsel. Counsel for the petitioner brought to our notice a order passed in Writ Petition No. 3966 of 1961 by a co-operative society of Gorakhpur. By this order, the High Court directed the city Magistrate, Gorakhpur and their respondents of that case to allot the quota of Government foodgrains and other essential commodities for distribution to the petitioner that writ petition. Since we are deciding the writ petition finally, we cannot pass any stay order in this petition. The power of granting the quota of Government foodgrains and other essential commodities rests with the authorities of the Government and not with this Court. The misuse of the power on grounds not sustainable in law can, of course, be quashed. 7. In the circumstances, mentioned above, we allow the writ petition and issue a Mandamus to the respondents directing them to consider the grant of quota of foodgrains and other commodities to petitioner within ten days from the date of presentation of the certified copy of this order, in accordance with law.