Judgment : Petitioner seeks the issuance of a writ of certiorari, or any other appropriate writ, or order, calling for the records relating to the impugned proceedings of the 1st respondent in Nee.Mu. 128445/ 97, dated 12. 1997 and quash the same. 2. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it is said that the deponent is the Vice President of the Society. It is said that the employees of Sitalakshmi Mills, Madurai have formed the Society at the mill premises in the year 1962. Employees of the Mills and the retired employees are the Members of the Stores. They own family cards for getting essential commodities such as rice, wheat, sugar and kerosene. For the convenience of the employees and also for the retired employees and also the public in and around the said mill premises, petitioner stores was allotted 1,353 cardholders for the supply of scheduled commodities. Out of 1,353 cardholders, more than 700 cardholders are employees of the said Mills. The remaining cardholders are retired employees and the public who are living adjacent to the mills. It is said that the former cashier misappropriated about Rs.3,50,000 from the petitioner-stores and it resulted in initiation of surcharge proceedings against him, which was not to the liking of the former Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies. It is said that the petitioner has employed one cashier, two salesman and two weighers and one delivery man. Disciplinary proceedings had to be initiated against one salesman for non-remittance of sale proceeds. The Stores had to be closed in the second week of November, 1997 in order to streamline the administration of the stores. Consequently, the essential commodities could not be taken delivery from the Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Limited. However, the petitioner-Stores took delivery of 60% rice allotment, 100% sugar and kerosene allotment and 50% of wheat allotment. The controlled commodities were duly supplied to all the card-holders. Second respondent sent a telegram on 111. 1997 and the same was received by the petitioner-Stores on 111. 1997. As mentioned in the telegram, the petitioner lifted essential commodities for November, 1997. There was no complaint from any one nor from any of the cardholders. During December, in the first week itself, petitioner lifted 50% of the allotted sugar and wheat, 40% of allotted kerosene and 10% of rice. 1997. As mentioned in the telegram, the petitioner lifted essential commodities for November, 1997. There was no complaint from any one nor from any of the cardholders. During December, in the first week itself, petitioner lifted 50% of the allotted sugar and wheat, 40% of allotted kerosene and 10% of rice. When the remaining stock was about to be lifted by tendering a demand draft, the authorities refused to permit the petitioner for lifting the essential commodities, on the basis of the impugned order. It is said that the impugned order violates the principles of natural justice. It is arbitrary and illegal, and the same is based on reports submitted by the Tahsildar and Joint Registrar, copies of which were not given to the petitioner, nor was the petitioner given opportunity of atleast one month notice before suspension of the authorisation. It is said that the petitioner has not violated any of the conditions stipulated in the authorisation and therefore, the impugned order is bad. 3. K.P.Sivasubramaniam, J. ordered interim stay of the impugned order for a period of four weeks, when the matter came for admission. Respondents have filed their counter, and the entire matter was heard. 4.. In the counter-affidavit filed by the second respondent, it is said that it is only because of the default of the petitioner, stocks could not be taken, and being essential commodities, petitioner has no legal or vested right to claim that it shall be the distributor. Public interest also has to be taken into consideration in such cases. It is also said that out of 1000 employees of the mill, only 50 of them hold the family cards for getting the essential commodities, and the rest of the family cards are from the general public. Representations were received one after another against the Society and also the persons employed by it. Apart from the same, there were allegations that the society staff were indulging in filthy and foul language, teasing the womenfolk and family cardholders who come for collection of commodities. Even the prices collected by the staff in respect of certain essential commodities was not according to guidelines. On 12. 1997, the District Collector of Madurai has clearly stated in his communication that due to conflicts and infights between the Vice President and Directors of the Society, the essential commodities were not distributed by the petitioner-stores upto 111. Even the prices collected by the staff in respect of certain essential commodities was not according to guidelines. On 12. 1997, the District Collector of Madurai has clearly stated in his communication that due to conflicts and infights between the Vice President and Directors of the Society, the essential commodities were not distributed by the petitioner-stores upto 111. 1997, and the stores remained closed. For these reasons, the Joint Registrar recommended the transfer of the family cards to Thirunagar Co-operative stores Limited. During December, 1997, the petitioner Stores remained closed for 15 days. The stores had not lifted the allotment made for the month of November, 1997. It was also found that the financial position of the stores was also not good. Under the above circumstances, without waiting for a hearing, urgent action had to be taken. Therefore, under the power vested in him, the first respondent passed the impugned order, which according to the respondents, is legal. The distribution right has already been given to Thirunagar Cooperative Society and the distribution system, after the allotment, is going on without any complaint, and the public is also satisfied about the alternate arrangement already made. The atmosphere was such that it was not proper to continue the dealership with the petitioner-Stores. If the petitioner-Stores is permitted to continue the dealership, it is the public that is going to suffer. It prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. Documents relied on by the learned Additional Government Pleader were also filed before court in the form of a typed set. 5. On going through those papers, it is clear that the functioning of the petitioner-Stores was not normal. There was mismanagement, and there was infight. By the own admission of the petitioner, it has not lifted essential commodities during some months; it remained closed very often, and during November, 1997 affected were the members of the public, and not the Society. Essential commodities are entrusted to Cooperative Stores for the purpose of distribution among the public, who are mostly poor people. If such stores remains closed for 15 days, it is the general public that is put to suffering. It has also been brought to the notice of this Court that due to mismanagement, criminal proceedings are pending against the staff of the petitioner-Stores. If such stores remains closed for 15 days, it is the general public that is put to suffering. It has also been brought to the notice of this Court that due to mismanagement, criminal proceedings are pending against the staff of the petitioner-Stores. From the typeset of papers filed by the learned Additional Government Pleader, it could be seen that memorandums have been given to authorities to take immediate action against the peti-tioner-Stores, Paper publication has also been given. From all these, it is clear that all is not well with the petitioner-Stores. It is only under those circumstances, the Government thought of passing the impugned order. 6. The question that arises for consideration is, whether the order is liable to be quashed for the reason that it violates the principles of natural justice. That is the only contention taken in this writ petition. 7. It is true that for years together, petitioner-Society was entrusted with the task of distributing essential commodities on the basis of the authorisation given by the respondents. Regarding essential commodities, no one has got a vested right to say that it shall be the dealer. Government as well as the Revenue officials are the appropriate authorities to consider and decide the person with whom such a task could be entrusted with. Public interest has to be taken into consideration in such matters. Merely because for some time the petitioner satisfied the requirements of the public, it does not mean that the authorisation must continue with the petitioner for ever. If public interest demanded that the authorisation must come to an end, and the same must be entrusted to some other agency, certainly the Government has got the power and authority to do it. But the question is, whether the same can be done only after an elaborate enquiry, or that there should be compliance of the principle of natural justice, i.e., opportunity of hearing before an order is passed. Naturally, we have to take into consideration the urgency of the matter while invoking the doctrine of natural justice. .8. In a very recent judgment of the Supreme Court, viz., Coal India Ltd. v. Continental Transport and Construction Corporation, (1997)9 S.C.C. 258 , which is also a case under the Essential Commodities Act, their Lordships considered this question when dealing with the powers of Coal Controller under Colliery Control Order, 1945. .8. In a very recent judgment of the Supreme Court, viz., Coal India Ltd. v. Continental Transport and Construction Corporation, (1997)9 S.C.C. 258 , which is also a case under the Essential Commodities Act, their Lordships considered this question when dealing with the powers of Coal Controller under Colliery Control Order, 1945. In para 19 of the judgment (at page 271) their Lordships said thus: .“Shri Dave has next contended that the impugned direction dated 14. 1994 was given by the Coal Controller without affording an opportunity to the appellants to make their submissions in that regard. In other words, Shri Dave has invoked the principles of audi alteram partem. We do not find any merit in this contention. We are unable to hold that it was incumbent upon the coal Controller to have afforded an opportunity to the appellants before giving the impugned direction in exercise of his powers under clause 8 of the Colliery Control Order. The power to issue directions under clause 8 has been conferred with a view to enable the Central Government-Coal Controller to effectively regulate the production, supply and distribution of and trade and commerce in coal. There may arise situations where immediate action may be called for. It cannot, therefore, be held that the said power can only be exercised after giving prior notice to the colliery owner or other persons affected by such directions. In case the colliery owner or any person feels that his interests are adversely affected by such a direction, he may place his case before the Central Government/Coal Controller who has given the direction and seek reversal of the same and, in that event, the authority concerned shall give due consideration to such submissions...” [Italics] According to me, the facts of this case are also similar. In November, 1997, the Co-operative Society was closed for days together and even thereafter the Society was not in a position to lift the entire goods earmarked for the cardholders in that locality. The ultimate sufferer was the general public. Being essential commodities for human existence, petitioner cannot contend that only after hearing it, alternate arrangements could be made. That will amount to putting a premium on the public interest. If the petitioner is ultimately aggrieved, it could have placed the necessary materials before the respondents and sought a reversal of the direction. The ultimate sufferer was the general public. Being essential commodities for human existence, petitioner cannot contend that only after hearing it, alternate arrangements could be made. That will amount to putting a premium on the public interest. If the petitioner is ultimately aggrieved, it could have placed the necessary materials before the respondents and sought a reversal of the direction. Merely because of the alleged violation of the principles of natural justice, 1 do not think it will be proper on the part of this Court to interfere with the impugned order. 9. That apart, I have already held that the petitioner has no vested or legal right to compel the respondents to give it the dealership in essential commodities. When public interest has to be considered while giving the dealership, that alone should be the criterion. Individual hardship will have to surrender so far as public interest is concerned. When the petitioner has no vested interest, the principle of natural justice has no application. .10. In State of U.P. v. Girish Bihari, (1997)4 S.C.C. 362 , their Lordships considered this question. That was a case where an I.P.S. Officer was granted extension beyond superannuation. But the extension order was cancelled before it actually came into force. The question was, whether the principle of natural justice applies. Their Lordships said that the officer had no vested right to continue in office. There was no scope for invoking the principles of natural justice, for there was no adverse civil consequence. In that case, it was held thus: .“...Till the order came into force, no vested right could have arisen. If the order of extension did not create any right, the cancellation order could not have withdrawn any such right. Hence, the question of right to hearing did not arise and there is no violation of rules of natural justice.” It cannot be said that as a general principle, whenever an order is passed, the principle of natural justice has to be followed. That depends upon the circumstances of the case, viz., the subject which the Authority deals with, and how far the concerned person will be affected if the principle is violated, etc. In the case on hand, the petitioner-Stores is entrusted with the task of distributing essential commodities. As stated already, due to its mal-administration and mal-functioning, respondents were compelled to take urgent action in the matter. In the case on hand, the petitioner-Stores is entrusted with the task of distributing essential commodities. As stated already, due to its mal-administration and mal-functioning, respondents were compelled to take urgent action in the matter. Even if the order is adverse to the dealer, the requirements of the principles of natural justice will be satisfied if a hearing is given after the decision is taken to review the same. Therefore, I reject the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order violates the principle of natural justice. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. No costs. 11. While sustaining the impugned order, I permit the petitioner-Stores to make a representation to the authorities concerned, for a review of the matter, and it is open to those Authorities to decide whether the impugned order is to be reviewed or not. W.M.P.No.30369 of 1997 for stay is closed.