JUDGMENT V.N. Khare, J. - These are three sets of writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. Since similar issues are involved, we propose to decide these petitions by a common judgment. 2. The first set of writ petition (No. 20086 of 1990) is by a retail dealer of kerosene oil who is engaged in the business of retail sale of kerosene oil in urban area (hereinafter referred to as the first set of writ petition). In this petition the petitioner holds licence for retail sale of kerosene oil under U. P. Kerosene Control Order 1962 which is renewed up to 1992. In pith and substance the prayer in this petition is for issuing direction to the respondents to release quota of kerosene oil for the month of August, 1990 and for the subsequent months. 3. The second set of writ petitions (Nos. 24834/90, 3213/90, 32153/90, 33445/90, 32456/ 90, 1271/91, 1287/91, 1379/91, 1433/91, 1435/91, 1436/91, 1437/91, 1468/ 91, 1469/91, 1472/1991, 1559/91, 1561/91, 1597/91, 1598/91, .../91, Ram Chandra v. State of U.P. and.../91, Safdar Hussain and others v. Collector and another is by various retail distributors who have been issued authorisation under Cl. 3 of U. P. Scheduled Commodities (Regulation of Distributors. Order) 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the Distribution Order of 1989) for distribution of scheduled commodities namely wheat, rice, sugar, edible oil and kerosene oil etc. through fair price shops situate in rural area (hereinafter referred to as second set of writ petitions). The prayer in these writ petitions is for renewal of their authorisation letter under the Distribution Order 1989 and renewal of licence issued under the Kerosene Control Order 1962, if not renewed. Common reliefs sought in these writ petitions are for release of quota of essential commodities in their favour. 4. The third set of writ petitions (Nos. 1273 r 91 and 1562; 91 is by retail distributors in urban areas whose agreement to run the fair-price shops have been suspended or cancelled. In this set of writ petitions there is also Writ Petition No. 1273/91 by an authorised agent whose licence for retail sale of kerosene oil through fair price shop has been suspended (hereinafter referred to as third set of writ petitions). 5. In this set of writ petitions there is also Writ Petition No. 1273/91 by an authorised agent whose licence for retail sale of kerosene oil through fair price shop has been suspended (hereinafter referred to as third set of writ petitions). 5. Since there were a number of Government Orders applicable to different areas, we directed the learned Standing Counsel to file a counter-affidavit in these cases bringing on record various control orders issued by the Government of U. P. in exercise of power conferred on it under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act and the Government Orders issued thereunder laying down the procedure for appointment of an agent to run fair price shop and terms and conditions of agreements entered into between the petitioners and the State Government. In compliance thereof the State Government has filed an affidavit in Writ Petition No. 1562 of 1991 annexing therewith all the relevant Control and Government Orders applicable to rural as well as the urban areas laying down the method and manner of appointment of an agent to run fair price shop and issuance of licence for retail sale of kerosene oil and terms and conditions of such appointments. In order to have a clear picture of the matter it is necessary to give details of various control orders and Government orders chronologically. By a notification published on 27-12-62 the State Government in exercise of its powers conferred on it under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act framed an order known as U. P. Kerosene Control Order 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Kerosene Control Order of 1962). Under this Order any person who wanted to be engaged in the business of retail sale of kerosene oil either in urban or in rural areas was required to take licence in Form IV. This licence was also required for retail sale of kerosene oil through fair price shops in rural area as well as the retail sale in urban areas. This licence was renewable from time to time. The policy of the State Government was that the distribution of kerosene oil in the rural areas was to be made through fair price shops whereas in urban areas the kerosene oil was being distributed to public through retail dealers who had a licence in Form IV. By a notification dated 10-5-90 the U. P. Kerosene Control Order, 1962 was amended. By a notification dated 10-5-90 the U. P. Kerosene Control Order, 1962 was amended. The amendment which is relevant for the purpose of these cases is that a proviso was added to Clause 7 of this Order. This proviso provided that a person who is appointed to run a fair price shop in accordance with the Order in force, no licence in Form IV became necessary but during the subsistence of such appointments is deemed a licence and bound by terms and conditions applicable to a licensee holding a licence in Form IV of the Order. The result of this amendment is that for the purposes of retail sale of kerosene oil, a person who is running a fair price shop is not required to obtain a licence under U. P. Kerosene Control Order, 1962. 6. The State Government issued an order in exercise of its power conferred on it by the Central Government under Section 3 of Essential Commodities Act known as U. P. Scheduled Commodities (Regulation of Distribution) Order 1989 (hereinafter referred to as Distribution Order of 1989). Simultaneously the State Government issued another order in exercise of power conferred on it under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act known as U. P. Scheduled Commodities Dealers Licensing and Restriction on Hoarding Order 1989 (hereinafter referred to as Licensing Order 1989). Clause 3 of the Distribution Order of 1989 provided for appointment of authorised retail distributors in accordance with the provisions of this Order. This Order provided for appointment of an authorised retail distributor of scheduled commodities through fair price shops and issuance of authorisation to him under Clause 3 of the Distribution Order 1989. The Licensing Control Order 1989 provided for obtaining licence by dealer or commission agent or manufacturer. However, this Licensing Order was not made applicable to authorised retail distributors appointed under Clause 3 of U. P. Scheduled Commodities (Regulation of Distribution) Order 1989 and, therefore, a retail distributor was not required to take licence under this Licensing Order of 1989. Subsequently, State Government framed another order in exercise of its powers under Section 3 of Essential Commodities Act read with notification of Government of India Ministry of Agriculture dated June 9, 1978 published in the U. P. Gazette of 3rd July, 1990 known as U. P. Scheduled Commodities Distribution Order 1990 (hereinafter referred to as the Distribution Order 1990). Subsequently, State Government framed another order in exercise of its powers under Section 3 of Essential Commodities Act read with notification of Government of India Ministry of Agriculture dated June 9, 1978 published in the U. P. Gazette of 3rd July, 1990 known as U. P. Scheduled Commodities Distribution Order 1990 (hereinafter referred to as the Distribution Order 1990). This Control Order of 1990 repealed U. P. Food-grain and other essential articles Distribution Order 1977 and U. P. Scheduled Commodities (Regulation of Distribution) Order 1989. 7. The Distribution Order of 1990 provided that a fair price shop shall be run through such person and in such a manner as the Collector, subject to directions of the State Government, may decide and persons appointed to run a fair price shop, shall operate it as the agents of the State Government. One of the scheduled commodity amongst others which is to be distributed through the fair price shop is kerosene oil. The State Government simultaneously also issued a Government Order dated 3-7-1990 (hereinafter referred to as the Government Order of 1990). This Government Order provided the method and manner of appointment of an agent of State Government who may be appointed to run the fair price shop for distribution of scheduled commodities in the rural areas only. In substance by this order the respective Gaon Sabhas were required to pass resolution in open meeting recommending the name of the person or persons in order of preference for being appointed as an agent to run the fair price shop. Para. 10 of this Government Order further provided that the appointment of an agent would come to an end on 31st December each year and in respect of the renewal of their appointments, separate order shall be issued. Paras 13 and 14 provided that due to the cancellation of agency of the agents to run fair price shop who were appointed under the earlier Control and Government Orders, a vacuum has been created and the District Magistrate of each district was required to make ad hoc appointments for smooth distribution of essential commodities in rural areas and these ad hoc appointments would come to an end on appointment of regular agents under the Distribution Control Order of 1990. 8. 8. So far as the retail sale of kerosene oil in urban area is concerned, the Government by an order dated 27-9-90 made a change in policy decision in respect of retail sale of kerosene oil and now the kerosene oil in urban areas was decided to be distributed through fair price shops and directions were issued that retail dealers of kerosene oil and who hold licence in urban areas may be appointed as agents to run the fair price shop and if the number of such retail dealers is more than the shops, they may be selected in order of preference. 9. The policy relating to appointment of an agent to run fair price shop in urban areas as bear out from the Government Order dated 27th Sept., 1990 is that the appointment of an agent to run fair price shop in urban area shall be made on the basis of recommendation of the District Selection Committee constituted under -the Government Order dated 15th September, 1984. In case of cancellation or suspension of agreement appeal has been provided to the District Magistrate in case the order is passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, and to the Commissioner in case the order has been passed by the District Magistrate. This is evident from the Government Order dated 15th September, 1978. 10. After briefly stating about the relevant control orders and the Government orders relating to appointment of an agent to run fair price shop and retail-seller of kerosene oil in rural and urban areas, we will now take up the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners in these three sets of writ petitions. 11. 10. After briefly stating about the relevant control orders and the Government orders relating to appointment of an agent to run fair price shop and retail-seller of kerosene oil in rural and urban areas, we will now take up the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners in these three sets of writ petitions. 11. The contention advanced on behalf of the petitioners in the first and second set of writ petitions is that since each of the petitioners was appointed as authorised retail distributor and was only issued authorisation in Form `A' prescribed in Schedule 2 of the Distribution Control Order 1989 for distribution of scheduled commodities including kerosene oil in the cases of rural areas and in the first set of writ petition as licensees for retail distribution of kerosene oil under the U. P. Kerosene Oil Control Order 1962 in urban area, they have acquired a right for distribution of scheduled commodities and their appointments or licences are liable to be renewed and further they are entitled to release of quota of scheduled commodities in their favour. This argument has been made on the strength of Section 6 of General Clauses Act 1897. There was a debate as to whether Section 6 of the General Clauses Act is applicable in the case of repeal and re-enactment of statutory rules. Counsel for the petitioners contended that Clause 24 of Distribution Control Order of 1990 itself provides that Sections 6, 8 and 24 of General Clauses Act, 1897 shall apply as they apply in relation to repeal and re-enactment of Central Act and further Clause 2 of Section 20 of U. P. General Clauses Act 1904 also provides that provisions of Sections 6, 8 and 24 shall mutatis mutandis apply in relation to any statutory instrument issued under any U. P. Act as they apply in relation to any U. P. Act. No doubt Section 6 of Central Act talks of Act and regulations and further U. P. General Clauses Act would not be applicable as the Control Orders have been framed under Section 3 read with the notification issued under Section 5 of the Essential Commodities Act, but we are not inclined to go elaborately in this matter in view of decision of this Court reported in ILR (1973) 2 Allahabad 788 wherein it was held that no doubt the section talks of enactment and not about rule, the principle contained in the Section can be applied even to the repeal of a statutory rule. We, therefore, hold that the principles enshrined in Section 6 of General Clauses Act are applicable in respect of repeal and reenactment of a statutory rule. Section 6 of General Clauses Act provides that where any Central Act or Regulation repeals any enactment unless the different intention appears, the repeal shall not affect any right, privilege accrued under any enactment so repealed. No doubt the petitioners in the first set of writ petition are retail dealers of kerosene oil in urban areas and have licence under U. P. Kerosene Control Order and the same has been renewed for the year 1991-92 and petitioners in second set of writ petitions were appointed as authorised distributors in rural area and further they have licence under the U. P. Kerosene Oil Control Order but the said licences are now because of the amendment made in the U. P. Kerosene Oil Control Order of 1962 rendered in fructuous. By the amendment made, on 10-5-90 in Kerosene Control Order no licence is required for retail sale of kerosene oil in urban area as well as in rural area and in fact if such a licence had been obtained, it has been rendered redundant and on this basis they cannot claim that they have any right as to compel the State Government to release quota of kerosene oil in their favour. So far the petitioners who are the authorised retail distributors appointed under the Distribution Control Order of 1989 for distribution of scheduled commodities in rural area are concerned, were appointed and issued authorisation under Distribution Control Order of 1989 and the Government Order dated 23-9-89. So far the petitioners who are the authorised retail distributors appointed under the Distribution Control Order of 1989 for distribution of scheduled commodities in rural area are concerned, were appointed and issued authorisation under Distribution Control Order of 1989 and the Government Order dated 23-9-89. But the Government Order dated 23-9-89 being in conflict with the Distribution Control Order of 1989, their appointments as authorised retail distributors were treated to have come to an end by the Government, and, therefore, the Government by an Order dated 3rd July, 1990 directed that the fresh agents be appointed to run fair price shop in accordance with the Distribution Control Order of 1990 and order issued thereunder. Thus the petitioners' appoint ments having come to an end, they cannot claim that their appointments as authorised retail distributors be renewed and further the quota of scheduled commodities be released in their favour. Moreover, there is a change in policy decision in respect of retail sale of kerosene oil in urban area inasmuch as distribution of the scheduled commodities including kerosene oil through fair price shop in rural area. Contrary intention is manifest in the newly framed Distribution Order of 1990 as well as in the Government Orders dated 3-7-90 and 27th Sept., 1990 in respect of appointment of an agent for distribution of scheduled commodities through fair price shops in urban and rural area. It would appear from the provisions of the said orders that so far as retail sale of kerosene oil in urban area is concerned, by the Government Order dated 27-9-1990 it was directed that the retail sale of kerosene oil in urban area shall be made only through fair price shops. The Government Order dated 27th Sept., 1990 directs that the ex-licensees of retail sale of kerosene oil be appointed as agents to run fair price shops and in case their number is more than the required number of fair price shops, their appointments be made in order of preference as provided in Government Order dated 13th Sept., 1984. Similarly the appointments of agents to run fair price shops in rural area for distribution of scheduled commodities including kerosene oil has to be done under Government Order dated 3-7-1990. Similarly the appointments of agents to run fair price shops in rural area for distribution of scheduled commodities including kerosene oil has to be done under Government Order dated 3-7-1990. The procedure provided in the Government Order dated 3-7-1990 is that the Gaon Sabha in its open meeting would recommend the names of such persons in order of preference for appointment of an agent to run the fair price shops. The District Magistrate on receipt of such resolution would make appointment of such agent according to the requirement of the area by entering into an agreement. From these provisions it appears that the Distribution Order of 1990 read with Government Order issued therein a different intention appears namely there is a change in policy in regard to the appointments of agents and distribution of scheduled commodities and, therefore, the petitioners cannot claim entitlement of renewal of their appointments or release of quota of scheduled commodities in their favour. We accordingly reject the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioners has cited a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Mahabir Auto Stores v. Indian Oil Corporation, AIR 1990 SC 1031 and on the strength of this decision it was argued that it was not open to the respondents to abruptly stop supply of scheduled commodities to the petitioners without any notice or intimation to them and the act of the respondents in not releasing the quota of the scheduled commodities in their favour, is arbitrary and the respondents may be directed to supply the scheduled commodities to the petitioners. We propose to deal this matter while considering the next submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners. 13. Lastly, it was argued that the cancellation or suspension of appointments of the petitioners as authorised retail distributors of scheduled commodities is arbitrary, unreasonable and against the principles of natural justice. In support of this argument, the learned counsel has relied upon the case of Mahabir Auto Stores, AIR 1990 SC 1031 (Supra). On the other hand the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel argued that the appointments of the petitioners as authorised retail distributors are governed by the terms of the contract and the relationship between petitioners and Government being contractual, these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution are not maintainable. 14. On the other hand the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel argued that the appointments of the petitioners as authorised retail distributors are governed by the terms of the contract and the relationship between petitioners and Government being contractual, these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution are not maintainable. 14. Before considering the contention of the learned counsel it is necessary to refer to the Distribution Control Order of 1990 and the order of 3rd July, 1990 issued in pursuance thereof. The Distribution Control Order of 1990 has repealed the Distribution Control Order of 1989 and the Order now applicable is the Distribution Order of 1990. This order was issued by the State Government under the powers conferred on it by the Central Government under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act. In this connection it is necessary to refer certain provisions of the Distribution Control Order of 1990. Clause 2(c) defines `Agent' means a person authorised to run a fair price shop. Clause 2(e) defines 'Fair Price Shop' means a shop set up under these orders of the State Government for the distribution of Scheduled Commodities. Clause 2(m) defines 'Scheduled Commodities' means commodities specified in the schedule appended to this order, products thereof and includes such other commodities which the State Government directs to be sold through a fair price shop. Clause 3 provides that with a view to effecting fair distribution of Scheduled Commodities the State Government may issue directions to set up such number of fair price shops in an area as it deems fit. Clause 4 of the Order provides that a fair price shop shall be run through such person and in such a manner as the Collector subject to the directions of the State Government may decide and a person appointed to run a fair price shop under sub-clause (1) shall operate as the agent of the State Government. In pursuance of the power under Clause 4 the State Government issued an order dated 3-7-1990 laying down the procedure and method of appointment of agent to run the Government fair price shop. The details of the procedure of appointment of agent in rural area as well as the urban area has been dealt with in the earlier part of the judgment which need not be reiterated. The details of the procedure of appointment of agent in rural area as well as the urban area has been dealt with in the earlier part of the judgment which need not be reiterated. Under para 6 of this Government Order after the agent is appointed, he is required to enter into an agreement and after this agreement is executed, the agent is allowed to distribute the scheduled commodities through Government run fair price shop. Clause I of the agreement stipulates that this agreement can be terminated without any kind of notice. 15. Clause 3 the agreement lays down the procedure for release of quota of scheduled commodities and further the agents shall sell only those scheduled commodities which the Government supplies to them and shall not deal in any other commodities. Para 16 of this agreement empowers the District Supply Officer to terminate the agreement without assigning any reason. Admittedly, all of the petitioners have entered into an agreement and Clause 16 of the agreement permitted the District Magistrate and District Supply Officer to terminate an agreement at any time without assigning any reason. Against this termination or cancellation there is a provision of appeal which lies to the Commissioner of the Division in case of fair price shops set up in rural areas and in case of cancellation or suspension of agreement relating to urban area fair price shops, the appeal is provided to the District Magistrate against the order of Sub-Divisional Officer and if the order is passed by the Collector, the appeal is to the Commissioner of the Division. It is clear that the agreement of the petitioners can be either terminated or suspended by the authorities who are competent to pass such orders. 16. We have already noted the relevant provisions of the Distribution Control Order of 1990. The Control Order of 1990 does not contain any provision for cancellation or suspension of agreement and further the order does not provide the manner in which the appointment of agent is to be made. From all these provisions it is manifest that the appointments of the petitioners as agents to run fair price shops are contractual and their right to run the fair price shop emanates from the agreements. From all these provisions it is manifest that the appointments of the petitioners as agents to run fair price shops are contractual and their right to run the fair price shop emanates from the agreements. The Supreme Court as well as this Court on various occasions considered this aspect of the matter and held that the relationship of an agent with the State Govt. is contractual. In the case of S. Chandrasekharan v. Govt. of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1974 SC 1543 the Supreme Court had occasion to consider the validity of the termination of agreement in respect of sale of levy sugar by the authorised agent and in this connection it was held that the agents appointed for sale of levy sugar do not have any fundamental right or legal right to deal with that commodity and as such they are bound by the terms of the contract and their termination being in pursuance of the agreement cannot be assailed by means of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. Similar view was expressed by a Full Bench of this Court in the cases of Shital Prasad v. Mohd. Saidullah, AIR 1975 Allahabad 344 and Raj Kumar Sheo Kumar v. A.D.M. (Civil Supplies), 1981 All LJ 261 and Ram Awadh v. State of U.P., (1990) 2 ECC 490 . In all these cases it was held that neither Article 14 of the Constitution nor principles of natural justice is attracted when agreement to sell Government's foodgrain through fair price shop is terminated. 17. In the present case the petitioners have no fundamental right or legal right to deal with the scheduled commodities distribution through the Government run fair price shops. It is open to the petitioners to carry on business of foodgrain other than the foodgrains supplied through these fair price shops. In fact their right to run fair price shops emanates from the agreement. The agreement permits the Collector to terminate or suspend the agreement and this termination or suspension order will not give a cause of action to the petitioners to challenge the said order of termination or suspension of agreement by means of petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. 18. The agreement permits the Collector to terminate or suspend the agreement and this termination or suspension order will not give a cause of action to the petitioners to challenge the said order of termination or suspension of agreement by means of petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. 18. Before we part with these cases we propose to deal with the arguments advanced on behalf of each of the petitioners in connection with prayer for supply of quota of scheduled commodities by the respondents in their favour. The argument is that the petitioners having been appointed as authorised retail distributors for running the Government fair price shops or issued a licence for retail sale of kerosene oil, it is not open to the respondents to abruptly stop supply of scheduled commodities including kerosene oil to them arbitrarily and without notice or intimation to them. 19. On the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners the question which arises for consideration is as to whether these petitioners have a right to receive the quota of scheduled commodities including kerosene oil and in the event of non-supply of scheduled commodities in their favour can this Court compel the respondents to release the quota of the said scheduled commodities in favour of the petitioners for being distributed through fair price shops. 20. We have gone through the Control Order of 1990 and the Government Order dated 3-7-90 issued in pursuance thereof and we find that none of the petitioners has any legal right to obtain supply of scheduled commodities including kerosene oil for distribution through the fair price shops and further there is no obligation on the part of the Government to supply these commodities in favour of the agents who have been appointed to run the fair price shops. However, there are several clauses pertaining to method and manner of supply of scheduled commodities to the agents for its distribution through fair price shops in the agreements entered into between the agents and the Government. The relevant clauses are Clauses 3, 4 and 5 of the agreement. Clause 3 of the agreement stipulates that an agent shall receive or lift quota of scheduled commodities in accordance with the directions issued by the authorities empowered in this behalf. The relevant clauses are Clauses 3, 4 and 5 of the agreement. Clause 3 of the agreement stipulates that an agent shall receive or lift quota of scheduled commodities in accordance with the directions issued by the authorities empowered in this behalf. Thus the supply of quota of scheduled commodities to the agents is subject to the orders issued by the authorities concerned and the agents cannot as a matter of right, claim release of scheduled commodities in their favour. We are, therefore, of opinion that the petitioners have neither any fundamental right nor legal right as to compel the Government to supply the scheduled commodities including kerosene oil in their favour. Moreover in the earlier part of the judgment we have already held that the relationship of agents who have been appointed for distribution of the scheduled commodities through the fair price shops with that of the State Government is contractual and in fact their appointments as agents and determination of the agreement are under the agreements which is non-statutory in character, and, therefore, the supply or release of quota of scheduled commodities in favour of the agents has to be governed by the incidence of the contract or agreement and this Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot compel the Government to supply the quota of scheduled commodities in favour of the petitioners. 21. So far as the case of Mahabir Auto Stores, AIR 1990 SC 1031 (supra) is concerned, that was a case where the petitioner firm had been receiving continuous supply of lubricants from the company for over two decades and it was suddenly stopped by the company and in this connection it was contended that the company has recognised the firm during all this period as authorised dealer, distributor and agent and the nature of business carried on by the petitioner firm was that of supply of lubricants with which the company had monopoly and would be carried on by the petitioner only as a supplier of the company. The sudden stoppage of lubricants was challenged on the ground its being arbitrary, unreasonable and done without notice or determination. Initially the respondents in this case contended that there was no contract to supply the lubricants and in any case the stoppage of supply was in pursuance of a policy decision. The sudden stoppage of lubricants was challenged on the ground its being arbitrary, unreasonable and done without notice or determination. Initially the respondents in this case contended that there was no contract to supply the lubricants and in any case the stoppage of supply was in pursuance of a policy decision. It was also contended that in private law field there is no scope for applying the doctrine of arbitrariness or mala fides. In para 12 of the judgment it was held that the State acts in its executive powers under Article 298 of the Constitution in entering or not entering in contracts with individual parties. Article 14 of the Constitution would be applicable to those exercise of power and, therefore, the action of State Organ can be checked. In para 17 of this decision the Supreme Court noted that in all such cases whether public law or private law rights are involved, depend on facts and circumstances of each case and the dichotomy between rights and remedies cannot be obliterated by any strait jacket formula. Further in para 20 of this judgment Supreme Court also observed that in cases where the instrumentality of the State enters the contractual field, it should he governed by the incidence of the contract ill though the party concerned should be taken into confidence. After noticing the law on the point, their Lordships of the Supreme Court evolved a process by which the respondents were directed to place before the appellant their case and considered the submission of the appellant firm. This was because of particular facts of this case where the appeilants were being supplied lubricants for over two decades and the respondent company had a monopoly in the commodity. After having gone through the case we are of opinion that the case of Mahabir Auto Stores (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case where the petitioners have no legal right to receive the supply of Government scheduled commodities. 22. Moreover, the controversy in the present case is squarely covered by the decisions of the Supreme Court and Full Bench of this Court in the case of S. Chandra Sekharan v. Govt. of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1974 SC 1543 (supra) and Shitla Prasad v. Mohd. Saidullah, AIR 1975 All 344 (supra) respectively. The decision of the Supreme Court in the case of S. Chandra Shekharan v. Govt. of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1974 SC 1543 (supra) and Shitla Prasad v. Mohd. Saidullah, AIR 1975 All 344 (supra) respectively. The decision of the Supreme Court in the case of S. Chandra Shekharan v. Govt. Tamil Nadu (supra) is a constitution bench decision of five Hon'ble Judges whereas the decision of the Supreme Court in Mahabir Auto Stores, AIR 1990 SC 1031 (supra) is a decision by two Hon'ble Judges of the Supreme Court. In our opinion the decision in the case of S. Chandra Shekharan v. Govt. of Tamil Nadu (supra), is binding on the High Court. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the petitioners cannot derive any assistance from the case of Mahabir Auto Stores (supra) as to compel the respondents to supply scheduled commodities for distribution through Government run fair price shops. 23. The result of the aforesaid discussions is that there is no merit in these writ petitions which are accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.