CHANDRAKANTHAREJ, J. ( 1 ) IN these three petitions filed as a common petition, petitioners have challenged their termination of the agreement that existed between the petitioners and the Government of Karnataka. By the said agreement, they were permitted or licenced to trade as Fair Price Shops in addition to their trade, trading in such commodities which the Government supply at the prices fixed by the Government for a commission to be given by the government. The termination has been the result of a Government Order dated 31-12-83. The Deputy Director of Food and Civil Supplies has, by his letter, called upon the Deputy Commissioner to issue necessary direction to cancel the licence granted to the petitioners to run fair Price Depots in Rainbennur town. Petitioners have not made out their legal right to run Fair Price Shops outside the agreement entered into with the Government. ( 2 ) IN identical circumstances In the case of Mahedeshwara Stores v State of karnataka (1983 (2) Kar LJ. P. 201 ). It was ruled that the agreements were entered into by the State Government in exercise of its executive power and not statutory power and therefore, the High court in exercise of its jurisdiction under article 226 could not give relief to the petitioners complaining of breach of contractual obligations of the State Government under the agreements. The Division bench comprising of the then Chief justice and another Judge of this Court relied on the decisions of the Supreme court reported in 1981 (3) Scale 1413 , air 1966 SC P. 334, AIR 1975 SC 1121 and AIR 1981 SC 1368 . ( 3 ) HOWEVER, Mr. Chandrashekar, learned counsel for the petitioners sought to distinguish the Division Bench ruling in Mahadeshwara Store's case on the ground that the Division Bench did not notice the decision in Ramana Dayaram shetty v The International Airport Authority of India (AIR 1979 S. C. P. 1628 ). My attention was drawn to para 11 of the said decision as reported in the All india Reporter. My attention was drawn to para 11 of the said decision as reported in the All india Reporter. The observations in that paragraph are of a general character, summarised, they mean no more than that the State tn distributing the largess available to it cannot discriminate between citizen and such distribution of largess would be arbitrary if it is done on the basis of the colour of the hair of a person or the political party to which a person belongs. ( 4 ) IN the instant cases, there is no distribution of the largess by the State government for the benefit of the petitioners to exploit and accumulate wealth. They are used as outlets for the grains and other essential food commodities which ace required to be distributed to the consumers in general, namely, the public at fair price. Under the agreement, they are only entitled to a certain commission paid by the State Government. In other words under the agreement the petitioners act as agents of the Government to distribute essential commodities at Fair Price and they are not given any public largess to exploit and accumulate wealth for themselves. Therefore, termination of their agency by whatever means cannot be questioned in proceedings under Article 266. If petitioners have suffered any loss on account of the termination of the agreement, they are entitled to move the civil courts for relief. ( 5 ) IN the light of the decision in mahadeshwara's case, these petitions do not deserve to be considered any further. Therefore, they are rejected. Writ Petition rejected. --- *** --- .