SHAKLA, J. ( 1 ) THIS order shall also govern the disposal of M. P Nos. 5/82 (M/s, Shivdutta Vidhyadhar Joshi\v. The Collector, Khargone and others) 12/82 (M/s. Ramlal Chhajulal Jaiswal v. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Mandleshwar and others), 13/82 (M/s. Kewalram Kaluji v. The Sub-Divisional Officer, mandleshwar and others), 14/82 (M/s. Abdullabhai Kikabhai v. The Collector khargone and others), 15/82 (M/s. Satyanarayan Ram Kishan v. The Sub divisional Officer, Mandleshwar and others), 16/82 (M/s. Prahaladsingh padamsingh v. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Mandleshwar and others), 17/82 (M/s. Kaihshchand Moolchand v. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Mandleshwar and others), 18/82 (M/s. Raghunandan Kishanlal v. The Col lector, Khargone and others), 19/82 (M/s. Tahirali Kikabhai v. The Collector, Khargone and others), 20/82 (M/s. Mishrilal Lachhiram v. The Sub-Divisional Officer mandleshwar and others), 28/82 (M/s. Shriram Champalal v. the Sub divisional Officer, Mandleshwar and others), and 102/82 (M/s. Sukhpalsingh ghisaji v. The Sub-Divisional Ojficer, Mandleshwar and others ). ( 2 ) THESE are petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorari for quashing orders dated 21-10-1981 and 5-11-1981 (Annexures IV and V of the petition) and also a writ of mandamus directing the respondents from considering only such applications for allotment of fair price shops which were filed upto 3-11-1981. ( 3 ) FACTS in all the above petitions except in M. P. Nos. 5/82,13/82, and 18/82, which we will discuss separately, are similar and, therefore, we will state the facts in M. P. No. 7/82 as illustrative. ( 4 ) PETITIONER was appointed a dealer under clause 3 of the M. P. Food stuffs (Distribution) Control Order, 1960 for Khangawada Panchayat area. The 1960 Control Order was amended and certain provisions therein were deleted. Clause 2ub was added to define "fair price shop" as a shop set up by the Government under the Government Scheme. The State government then published a Scheme for distribution of the Food stuffs throgh the fair price shops under clause 2 (D) of the amended I960 Control order by notification dated 28th March, 1981. Clause 3 (1) of the Scheme provides for setting up of a fair price shop by Collector in each District. Clause 4 deals with appointment of agents for running these shops. Clause 4 (1) specifies that the agent will have no legal ownership of the fair price shop. Clause 4 (2) lays down the guidelines and procedure for appointment of agents. Clause 4 deals with appointment of agents for running these shops. Clause 4 (1) specifies that the agent will have no legal ownership of the fair price shop. Clause 4 (2) lays down the guidelines and procedure for appointment of agents. ( 5 ) SUB-DIVISIONAL Officer, Revenue, Mandleshwar, District West Nimar, issued a public notice (Annexure II) dated 21-10-1981 inviting applications for appointment of a retail dealer for its fair price shop for Khangawada panchayat area. The last date for submitting the applications was notified as 3-11-1981. Petitioner filed an application in response to the notice on 3-11-1981. On the same date vide Order (Aneexure-IV) the S. D. O. cancelled the appointments of the dealers who were running fair price shops undei the 1960 Control Order before the introduction of the new scheme. ( 6 ) RESPONDENT No. 3, which is a Co-operative Society was, appointed as a retail dealer of the fair price shop in question by the S. D. O. vide order dated 5-11-1981 (Annexure V of the petition ). ( 7 ) PETITIONER has challenged the legality of the orders dated 21-10-1981 cancelling the dealership of the petitioner and dated 5-11-1981 appointing respondent No. 3 as the retail dealer of the fair price shop for Khangawada panchayat area. The grounds are firstly that petitioner's dealership was cancelled without notice and thus there was violation of the principles of natural justice. Secosdly the S. D. O. appointed respondent No. 3 as agent in violation of the conditions and guidelines laid down in clause 4 of the aforesaid Scheme. It was pleaded that respondent No. 3 the allottee of the fair price shop was not a consumers' Co-operative Society and, therefore, was not entitled to any priority in allotment of the shop in question. Further according to the petitioner respondent No. 3 never applied for allotment of the said fair price shop and, therefore, its allotment was in contravention of the guidelines laid down in the Scheme. By the aforesaid allotment petitioner's right to be considered for allotment as an agent was violated. Petitioner, therefore, prayed for quashing the aforesaid orders and for continuing his appointment as retail dealer which he held before coming into force of the Scheme. By the aforesaid allotment petitioner's right to be considered for allotment as an agent was violated. Petitioner, therefore, prayed for quashing the aforesaid orders and for continuing his appointment as retail dealer which he held before coming into force of the Scheme. ( 8 ) IN the return filed by the respondents 1, 2 and 3, it was pleaded that petitioner had no locus to seek any relief as his appointment as retail dealer of the fair price shop came to ah end alter the introduction of the Scheme. It was further pleaded that the provisions of the Scheme were not violated. According to the respondents under the Scheme preference had to be given for allotment of fair price shops to the Co-operative Societies and since respondent No. 3 was a Co-operative Society, its allotment was valid and legal under the Scheme. It was, however, not disputed that the allottee respondent No. 3 was net a consumers' Co-operative Society and that this respondent did not apply for allotment of a fair price shop in response to the public notice published by the S. D. O. on 21-10-1981. The allotment of the shop in favour of respondent No. 3 was, however, supported on the ground that it was not necessary for a Co-operative Society to make any application for appointment as a retail dealer and its appointment without such application was justified under the provisions of the Scheme. ( 9 ) BEFORE we deal with the rival contentions we may refer to a decision of this Court in Madhya Pradesh Ration Vikreta Sangha, Jabalpur and others v. State of Madhya Pradesh, and another [1981 M. P. L. J. 528] where the fight of a citizen to be appointed an agent or a retail dealer udder the scheme in question has been elaborately considered. Firstly it has been held that after the amendment of the 1960 Control Order and introduction of the Scheme, the erstwhile retail dealers of the fair price shops had no locus to claim any right to Bold the dealerships. ( 10 ) SECONDLY, paragraph 16 of the judgment makes it clear that Cooperative Societies mentioned in Clause 2 of the Scheme have reference to Consumers'. Co-operative Societies and not all types of Co-operative Societies. ( 10 ) SECONDLY, paragraph 16 of the judgment makes it clear that Cooperative Societies mentioned in Clause 2 of the Scheme have reference to Consumers'. Co-operative Societies and not all types of Co-operative Societies. These observations of this Court in the cited case were approved by the Supreme Court in an appeal filed by the petitioners M. P. Ration Vikreta Sangha (See M P. V. S. Society v. State of M P. , [a. I. R. 1981 SC 2001] Following observations of the Supreme Court are significant:"further, the question whether fair price shops in the State of madhya Pradesh under a Government Scheme should be directly run by the Government through the instrumentality of consumers Co-operative Societies as its agents or by retail dealers to be appointed by the Collector under Clause 3 of the Control order, is essentially a matter of policy with which the Court is not concerned. However, by the expression "co-operative societies" in the Scheme, the Government intended and meant "consumers' Co-operative Societies", and if by mistake there was a wrong allotment made to a 'co-operative Society' which was not a "consumers' Co-operative Society", the Government would take steps to cancel the allotment. " ( 11 ) IN the cited case this Court as well as the Supreme Court dealt with the contentions of the petitioners that by showing preference in favour of the co-operative Societies, the State committed hostile discrimination and impinged the right of equality granted under Article 14 of the Constitution. Holding that there was no such violation of the petitioner's fundamental right, this Court as well as the Supreme Court observed that when a consumers' co-operative Society was appointed an agent for distribution of food stuffs through, a fair prise shop, there was no hostile discrimination affecting the petitioners. Conversely, if the allottee is not a consumers'co-operative society, it cannot claim preference under the Scheme over other applicants for appointment as an agent for a particular fair price shop. ( 12 ) CLAUSE 4 (2) of the Scheme lays down the guidelines for appoinment of an agent for a fair price shop. Sub-section (1) provides that highest priority will be given to co-operative societies. As already noted earlier their lordships of the Supreme Court have endorsed the view of this Court that cooperative societies mentioned in sub-clause (1) will have reference to consumers' co-operative societies and not other co-operative societies. Sub-section (1) provides that highest priority will be given to co-operative societies. As already noted earlier their lordships of the Supreme Court have endorsed the view of this Court that cooperative societies mentioned in sub-clause (1) will have reference to consumers' co-operative societies and not other co-operative societies. If a co-operative society other than a consumers' co-operative society wants to be appointed as an agent for a fair price shop, it has to fulfill the conditions mentioned in sub-clauses 3 to 7 of clause 4 (2) of the Scheme lays down that a public notice will be issued for allotment of fair price shops in the area concerned, inviting applications in that behalf and fixing therein the last date for receipt of applications. It was in compliance with this sub-clause that a public notice was issued by the S. D. O. Mandleshwar on 21-10-1981. Condition No. 8 of this notice (Annexure II) in clear terms required the managers of the Co-operative Societies to submit application before the specised date which was 3-11 -1981. It is clear that under the provisions of the Scheme as well as under the public notice (Annexure II) inviting applications for allotment of fair price shops, applications had to be made before the specified date by persons desirous to be appointed agents of the fair price shops mentioned in the public notice. Respondent No. 3 which admittedly was not a consumers' Co-operative Society did not apply for appointment as an agent to run the fair price shop in question. Appointment of respondent no. 3 therefore not only contravened the requirement of the Scheme about a public notice, but also petitioner's right to be considered for appointment as an agent in respect of the fair price shop in question. The appointment, therefore, has to be cancelled. ( 13 ) ALL the petitions except M. P. Nos. 5/82, 13/82 and 18/82, are partly allowed. Appointments of the respondents co-operative societies as agents of the fair price shops mentioned in the petitions are cancelled. Respondent sub-Divisional Officer is directed to issue a fresh notice in accordance with clause 4 (2) (v) of the Scheme inviting applications by a public notice and then appointing agents for allotment of fair price shops in the various panehayat areas mentioned ia the petitions strictly in accordance with the guidelines and conditions laid down in Clause 4 (2) of the Scheme. Prayer for quashing the order dated 21-10-1981 (Annexure IV) cancelling the earlier appoinments of the petitioners as a dealer of the fair price shops is rejected. ( 14 ) IN M. P. No. 5/82 the respondent co-operative society had applied for allotment of a fair price shop. But admittedly it was not a consumers' co-operative Society and, therefore, allotment in its favour could not have been made on a priority basis. Petitioner's application should also have been considered in accordance with the guidelines laid down in clause 4 (2) of the Scheme. This was apparently not done as the S. D. O. was of the view that the respondent being a co-operative society was entitled to receive highest priority. This petition is also allowed, and the order of allotment in favour of the respondent co-operative society is cancelled. Allotment of the fair price shop mentioned in the petition will have to be made after a fresh public notice is issued inviting applications and the same are dealt with in accordance with the guidelines laid down in Clause 4 (2) of the Scheme. ( 15 ) IN M. P. Nos. 13/82 and 18/82 the facts are different. In M. P. 13/82 the petitioner did not apply at all in response to the public notice issued by the S. D. O. under Clause 4 (2) of the Scheme. Petitioner, therefore, was not entitled to challenge the allotment as he could not complain of infringement of any right. The Petitioner has no locus to file this petition. The Petition (M. P. No. 13/82) is, therefore, dismissed. ( 16 ) PETITIONER in M. P. 18/32 did not apply for allotment ofthe fair price shops before the date specified in the public notice. This petitioner also has no locus to complain against the allotment of the shop to the respondent Co-operative Society. M. P. No. 18/82 is also dismissed. ( 17 ) THERE will be no order as to costs. The outstanding amount of security deposit may be refunded to the petitioners. Order accordingly. .