Judgment : Since the short question involved is whether any civil right is involved for the plaintiff to file the suit, I thought, it is better to dispose of the matter early and issued notice of motion. .2. The appellants are the defendants in the suit O.S.No.231 of 1987 on the file of the Principal Sub-Court, Pondicherry. The respondent herein filed the said suit for declaration that he is the absolute owner and proprietor of the Fair Price Shop No .28, Kamaraj Salai, Saram, Pondicherry and for mandatory injunction directing the third defendant to restore possession of the commodities and personal properties taken by him, and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Fair Price Shop No.28. It is the case of the plaintiff that his father one Shanmuga Udayar was running a Fair Price Shop, the subject-matter of the suit. He died six months prior to the filing of the suit and after his death, the plaintiff was running the shop with the permission of the second defendant. The Essential Commodities were supplied to him for distribution. On 8. 1987 the third defendant came to the shop, broke open the lock, took away all the articles in addition to cash and title deeds, for which, a complaint was lodged by the plaintiff with the Superintendent of Police. The conduct of the second defendant in supplying essential commodities to the plaintiff amounted to tacit approval of transfer of permit to run the fair price shop even after the demise of his father, and since the conduct of the third defendant offends the right of the plaintiff to run the fair price shop, the suit has been filed. The second defendant filed a written statement, which was adopted by the defendants 1 and 3. The defendants had raised the plea that the suit is not maintainable for want of notice under Sec.80, C.P.C. and the relief claimed in the suit is not of civil nature. Since the Licensee of the fair Price shop, the father of the plaintiff, died suddenly, the plaintiff was permitted to run the fair price shop only as an interim measure. By order dated 30.7.1987, the plaintiff was directed to hand over the fair price shop to the Administrator, Pondicherry Public Servants Cooperative Society Limited, Pondicherry. The copy of the order was served on the plaintiff on 37. By order dated 30.7.1987, the plaintiff was directed to hand over the fair price shop to the Administrator, Pondicherry Public Servants Cooperative Society Limited, Pondicherry. The copy of the order was served on the plaintiff on 37. 1987 and since the plaintiff failed to comply with the order, the third defendant took action. 3. The Trial Court after elaborately discussing the evidence on record, by its judgment and decree dated 6. 1994, had dismissed the suit. As against this, the plaintiff filed an appeal in A.S.No.121 of 1994 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Pondicherry, who by the judgment and decree, dated 12. 1995 had allowed the appeal and set aside the decree and judgment of the Trial Court. As against this judgment and decree, the appellants/defendants had preferred this second appeal. Mr.Murugesan, learned Government Pleader for Pondicherry contended that the suit itself is not maintainable, as the relief claimed by the plaintiff is not of civil nature and as such Sec.9, C.P.C. is attracted. Further it is contended that the father of the plaintiff had been issued the licence to run the fair price shop. When once the licence is granted to run the fair price shop, the rights of the grantee of such licence is governed by the terms and conditions of the licence. The Pondicherry Scheduled Commodities (Regulation of Distribution by Card System) Order, 1975 governs the issue of licence. As per Clause(i) of the said Order, the fair price shop allotted is not transferable. Even in case of transfer, the specific approval of the Director of Civil Supplies is necessary. In case of demise of the owner or for any reason the licensee is incapacitated to run the fair price shop, the Director of Civil Supplies, the competent Authority may reallot the fair price shop to any other person. Hence the plaintiff has no vested right to claim a declaration that he is the owner of the fair price shop. 4. On the contrary, Mr.Muthukumarasamy learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff contended that after the death of the father of the plaintiff, the plaintiff had been permitted to run the shop and the plaintiff has also applied for the licence. The defendants without disposing of the application filed by the plaintiff has now directed the plaintiff to hand over the shop to the Pondicherry Public Servants Co-operative Society Ltd., Pondicherry, Which is illegal. The defendants without disposing of the application filed by the plaintiff has now directed the plaintiff to hand over the shop to the Pondicherry Public Servants Co-operative Society Ltd., Pondicherry, Which is illegal. It is the bounden duty of the defendants to dispose of the application filed by the plaintiff by assigning valid reason. Hence the action of the defendant is illegal. Further it is contended by the learned counsel for the respondent that in the counter filed in C.M.P. No. 17088 of 1996 it has been made reference to several cases. Here the authorities had permitted the legal representatives to run the fair price shop on the demise of the original allottee. In this case, there is no reason for the authorities to vary and on that ground also the plaintiff will be entitled for the relief claimed. 5. I carefully considered the contention of both the counsel. There is no dispute that the fair price shops are being allotted by the Director of Civil Supplies under the Pondicherry Scheduled Commodities (Regulation of Distribution by Card System) Order, 1975. When once the allotment under the said order by the concerned authority comes in, then it cannot be said that any individual is entitled to run the fair price shop. It is only those who have been allotted under the said order will be permitted to run the fair price shop. Here, originally the father of the plaintiff was allotted the fair price shop. After his death, the legal representatives have been permitted to run the shop with the only intention to help the card-holders who have been attached to that particular shop. Otherwise the card holders will be put to inconvenience, if the shop is suddenly closed. The intermediary arrangement cannot be considered to vest the plaintiff with any right for the shop. It is worthwhile to refer to Clause (i) of the Order: “The Fair Price Shop allotted is not transferable. In case the person to whom the Fair Price Shop is allotted, is not in a position to run the Fair Price Shop, he cannot transfer it on his own to anybody including to his heirs/successors without specific approval of the Director of Civil Supplies. In case the person to whom the Fair Price Shop is allotted, is not in a position to run the Fair Price Shop, he cannot transfer it on his own to anybody including to his heirs/successors without specific approval of the Director of Civil Supplies. In case of demise of the owner or for any reason, he is incapacitated to run the Fair Price Shop, the Director of Civil Supplies competent Authority may reallot the Fair Price Shop to any other person.” Clause (i) of the said order makes it clear that the fair price shop is not a transferable one. Even on the demise of the original allottee, it cannot be said that it would devolve on the heirs of the original allottee. When such is the position, it is not known on what basis the suit has been filed claiming the right to run the fair price shop as that of a civil right. 6. The Trial Court had considered the fact that the mother of the plaintiff has also made the claim for the allotment of the fair price shop, under Ex.A-3. Hence the plaintiff ought to have impleaded his mother either as the co-plaintiff or as a defendant in the suit. When the plaintiff claims that he is the legal heir of the deceased, original allottee of the fair price shop, he ought to have impleaded the other legal representatives of the deceased allottee. In the absence of the legal representatives or any consent or concurrence from the other legal representatives, the plaintiff cannot be considered to be a person who is entitled for the allotment of ‘the fair price shop. As stated already, the allotment cannot be claimed by way of right. It is a privilege that is conferred under the sovereign power of the State. .7. The conduct of the second respondent in permitting the plaintiff or his mother to continue to run the fair price shop until an alternative arrangement is made, will not entitle the plaintiff to claim such allotment as of right. The interim arrangement, as pleaded by the appellant, may be for the convenience of the cardholders who have been attached to that particular fair price shop. Further there is no dispute that the third defendant had directed the plaintiff to hand over the stock to the co-operative society. The interim arrangement, as pleaded by the appellant, may be for the convenience of the cardholders who have been attached to that particular fair price shop. Further there is no dispute that the third defendant had directed the plaintiff to hand over the stock to the co-operative society. The plaintiff has not chosen to challenge the Order, dated 30.7.1987 directing him to hand over the stall with all Essential Commodities to the Administrator, Pondicherry Public Servants Co-operative Society Limited. Without challenging the said order, it is not open to the plaintiff to file the suit for the relief of declaration. The declaratory relief cannot be sustained because the plaintiff is not the owner of the fair price shop, especially, when it is a privilege, that is being conferred by way of allotment by the Authorities prescribed under the Pondicherry Scheduled Commodities (Regulation of Distribution by Card System) Order, 1975. 8. Mr.Muthukumarasamy, learned counsel for the respondent drew my attention to the averment made in the counter filed in the civil miscellaneous petition before this Court by the respondent, wherein, he has pleaded that certain other persons have been permitted to continue and the conduct of the appellants in closing down the plaintiff’s shop is discriminatory. The nature of the plea raised by the defendant in the counter requires further evidence and at this stage, I do not think such plea can be permitted to be raised when the same is absent in the plaint or in the memorandum of grounds filed before the Lower Appellate Court in the first appeal. The lower Appellate Court merely proceeded on the basis that the defendants had exceeded their power in doing so and also the lower Appellate Court comes to the conclusion that the defendants are estopped from directing the plaintiff to close down the shop, as the plaintiff has been permitted to continue the shop after the death of his father, the original allottee, I am of the opinion that both the grounds cannot be countenanced in law. The trial Court has rightly appreciated the contentions and dismissed the suit. Since no civil right is involved, I am of the opinion that the plaintiff is not entitled for any relief as claimed. Accordingly, the second appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree of the lower Appellate Court are set aside and the judgment and decree of the Trial Court are partly restored. Since no civil right is involved, I am of the opinion that the plaintiff is not entitled for any relief as claimed. Accordingly, the second appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree of the lower Appellate Court are set aside and the judgment and decree of the Trial Court are partly restored. No costs. 9. In view of the judgment passed in the second appeal, no order is necessary in C.M.P.No. 17088 of 1996 and the same is closed. 10. Since the suit has been filed for declaration that the plaintiff is the proprietor of the fair price shop and for mandatory injunction directing the defendants to restore the essential commodities, which had been removed from the shop, along with cash, my finding given above, would dis-entitle the plaintiff for the declaratory relief. Hence, the suit is dismissed only so far as the declaratory relief is concerned. .11. So far as the mandatory injunction is concerned, the lower Appellate Court has granted the relief for the reasons stated in my judgment in paragraph 8. Now, that the reasons given by the lower Appellate Court for decreeing the suit had been set aside, the suit is remitted to the trial Court for fresh consideration so far as the relief of mandatory injunction alone is concerned, as both the Courts below have totally failed to consider the evidence with regard to the entitlement of the plaintiff to the said relief. 12. It is further open to the plaintiff to approach the second defendant/second appellant herein for the allotment of a fair price shop by way of application and the concerned Authorities may consider the same and pass orders.