JUDGMENT : ( 1. ) WE have heard this matter exhaustively. The only point urged for our consideration is that the appeal provided under the Scheme, namely, M. P. (Khadya padarth) Sarwajanik Nagrik Purti Scheme, 1981, has not been disposed of by the competent authority and, therefore, the impugned order is illegal and without jurisdiction. The grievance is that instead of the "collector", "additional Collector" had heard the appeal while under the Scheme, it is the Collector who is only authorised to hear the appeal. ( 2. ) HOWEVER, we do not find any merit in the submission pressed because of what we read in the provisions of Section 2 (6) and Section 17 of M. P. General Clauses Act, 1957 and Section 17 of M. P. Land Revenue Code, 1959, cumulatively. We quote the relevant provisions : G. C. Act : "2. General Definitions.- In this Act and in all Madhya Pradesh enactments, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context, - (6) "collector" means the chief officer-in-charge of the revenue administration of a district". . . . . . "17. Substitutions of functionaries.- In any enactment it shall be sufficient for the purpose of indicating the application of the law to every person or number of persons for the time being executing the functions of an office, to mention the official title of the officer at present executing the functions, or that of the Officer by whom the functions are commonly executed. " M. P. L. R. C. (for short Code) : "17. Power to appoint Additional Collectors.- (1) The State government may appoint one or more Additional Collectors in a district. (2) An Additional Colletctor shall exercise such powers and discharge such duties conferred and imposed on a Collector by or under this Code or by or under any other enactment for the time being in force, in such cases or class of cases as the State Government may, by a general order, notify or as the collector of the district may, subject to any general or special restrictions imposed by the State Government, by an order in writing direct. (3) This Code and every other enactment for the time being in force and any rule made under this Code or any such other enactment shall, except where expressly directed otherwise, apply to the Additional Collector, when exercising any powers or discharging any duties under sub-section (2), as if he were the Collector of the district. " (emphasis added ). ( 3. ) IT is very clear that the Collector is in-charge of Revenue Administration of the district as appears from Section 2 (6) of the General Clauses Act and in accordance with the provisions of Section 17 of the Code as also section 17 of the General Clauses Act the Government has a power to appoint Additional Collector who may discharge all or any of the duties or functions not only envisaged under the Code but also "under any other enactment for the time being in force". It is not the petitioners case that under the scheme aforesaid there is an express prohibition against the Additional Collectors exercising any power under the Scheme. Indeed, it is also not his case that in virtue of any "general or special restriction", contemplated under section 17 (2) of the Code, the collector was disabled from transferring to the Additional Collector for disposal the appeal filed before him under the Scheme. ( 4. ) WE have, therefore, no hesitation to hold that the Additional Collector, exercising lawfully the powers of the Collector and having disposed of the appeal exercising his jurisdiction lawfully, the grievance is meritless. Indeed, Section 17 of general Clauses Act itself envisages that any functionary under any enactment may be mentioned by the official title and under "any" enacted law those functions may be exercised not by an officer so described but also by one who is authorised thereunder to exercise those functions. In virtue of his entitlement under sub-sections (2) and (3) of section 17 of the Code, the Additional Collector is evidently duly authorised to hear appeal transferred to him by the Collector. The Scheme being a State "enactment", the provisions afore-extracted fully cover the field and reliance by petitioners counsel on the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act would not clearly avail the petitioner. ( 5. ) COUNSEL has relied on the decision in Budhoolal, 1964 M. P. LJ. The Scheme being a State "enactment", the provisions afore-extracted fully cover the field and reliance by petitioners counsel on the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act would not clearly avail the petitioner. ( 5. ) COUNSEL has relied on the decision in Budhoolal, 1964 M. P. LJ. 887 = 1964 JLJ 580, but we are not at all convinced that the view we have taken militates against that taken in the decision cited for the reason that the provisions we have considered never came up for the consideration of their Lordships in that case. Who is a "collector" under m. P. Public Trusts Act, 1951 was the question that was considered in that case and it was held that he was a persona designata under that Act which did not define the said term. There was no occasion for this Court to refer to the provisions of M. P. General clauses Act or M. P. Land Revenue Code. ( 6. ) RELIANCE is also placed on a decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of M/s. Anil Brothers, 1987 EFR 101, which is a decision rendered under the provisions of Sections 6-A and 6-B of the Essential Commodities Act. It was held that the Collector had no authority to delegate his power of taking any action under the Act afier seizure made under relevant provision of the Act. There was no occasion for the court to consider whether under any State enactment like the Scheme, the Authority to discharge any function could only be "collector" and not Additional Collector merely because "additional Collector" was not specifically mentioned. There is nothing to be read in the decision that the term "collector" mentioned in the Scheme in the instant case would not include "additional Collector" for the purpose of hearing an appeal under the Scheme, under any circumstances. ( 7. ) THERE is also another contention which arises no doubt tangentially because the appeal concerns right of the petitioner to continue to function as a "dealer" under the Scheme. However, after perusing the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme court in the case of M. P. Ration Vikreta Sangha, AIR 1981 SC 2001 , we have no hesitation to hold atonce that the grievance is without any substance as the ambit and purpose of a similar Scheme was considered there. However, after perusing the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme court in the case of M. P. Ration Vikreta Sangha, AIR 1981 SC 2001 , we have no hesitation to hold atonce that the grievance is without any substance as the ambit and purpose of a similar Scheme was considered there. Indeed, it was held in categorical terms therein by their Lordships that there is no fundamental right in any one to be appomtedas an agent of a fair price shop under the Government Scheme. That finally clinches the fate of the petition. ( 8. ) WITH the above observations, this petition is disposed of at the admission stage. Order accordingly.