V. GOPALA GOWDA, J. ( 1 ) THE 2nd respondent issued a notification inviting applications for grant of license to open fair price depots in Hariharapura village in pavagada Taluk. The petitioner, 3rd respondent and another person have filed the applications. An endorsement as per Annexure-C was issued to the petitioner stating that pursuant to the order dated ( 2 ) 4. 96 of the first respondent, there is a ban for opening new fairprice depots. There after, the matter was considered and vide order at Annexure-E dated 12. 5. 1998 the Deputy Commissioner sanctioned fair price depot in favour of the 3rd respondent. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed appeal before the first respondent. However, the said appeal came to be rejected by the order at Annexure-F dated 17. 8. 1998. In this Writ Petition the petitioner has sought for quashing both the orders at Annexures-E and F and is seeking a direction to the 2nd respondent to grant authorisation to him to run a fair price depot. 2. Statement of objections is filed on behalf of the 3rd respondent reiterating the facts and justifying the impugned orders. It is stated that the petitioner had not at all satisfied the eligibility condition prescribed under Clause 5 of the Public Distribution System (Control) order, 1992. Certain other information relating to the properties possessed by the family of the petitioner and their avocations are stated, with which we are not concerned. ( 3 ) IN the back-drop of the above facts and circumstances, it has to be tested as to whether the grant of license to the 3rd respondent under Annexure-E to run the fair price depot rejecting the claim of the petitioner was justified or not and whether the order passed by the appellate authority as per Annexure-F is sustainable or not. ( 4 ) A perusal of the impugned order at Annexure-E reveals that the 2nd respondent has merely observed the petitioner, who belongs to Scheduled Caste, has submitted application and already in the taluk fair price shops have been sanctioned to the persons belonging to Schedule Castes as per the priority list. Except that, nothing is stated about the petitioner. Even the application of the petitioner was not rejected in the order. Except that, nothing is stated about the petitioner. Even the application of the petitioner was not rejected in the order. For selecting the 3rd respondent to sanction the fair price depot, the reason assigned by the 2nd respondent is that with a view to create equal opportunity to the women in order to engage in public works, reservation for women has to be created. That was not the relevant consideration for sanctioning the fair price depot. The 2nd respondent exceeded his jurisdiction in assigning his own reasons without considering the matter on merits, namely, fulfillment of eligibility criteria, the infracture possessed by the applicants, the priority basis and other relevant factors. Therefore, the impugned order at Annexure-E is wholly unsustainable in law and the same is liable to be quashed. ( 5 ) WHILE considering the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the grant of price price depot in favour of 3rd respondent, the appellate authority/first respondent has failed to consider the above- noticed mistake committed by the 2nd respondent. Added to this, the appellate authority assigned his own reasons. The reasons assigned are that the place selected by the petitioner for running the fair price shop belongs to his sister-in-law with whom he had entered into a rental agreement and that the said house is away from the main road and it is difficult for transporting the food grains. The appellate authority has failed to note that question of acquiring or obtaining a premises for running the fair price depot would arise only after grant of license or authorisation. Even after grant of such license if the premises selected by the petitioner was not sustainable, the authorities could compel him to go for an alternative suitable premises for running the business. Selection of a non-suitable premises is no basis for rejecting the application for grant of authority for running the fair price depot. The reason assigned is totally irrelevant and it was not the stage to consider the suitability or otherwise of the premises selected by the petitioner for the purpose of running the business. Selection of a non-suitable premises is no basis for rejecting the application for grant of authority for running the fair price depot. The reason assigned is totally irrelevant and it was not the stage to consider the suitability or otherwise of the premises selected by the petitioner for the purpose of running the business. ( 6 ) THE other reason assigned by the appellate authority in the impugned order at Annexure-F is that the petitioner is unemployed scheduled Tribe candidate and he would get the priority for allotment of fair price shop under Clause 6 of the Essential Commodities (PDS) control Order only when he satisfies the eligibility conditions. The conclusion arrived at by the appellate authority is that since the petitioner did not satisfy the eligibility condition as he has no suitable business premises, he cannot claim priority under Clause 6 of the order. This approach of the appellate authority is contrary to the object with which the priority is created. The reasonings are erroneous. ( 7 ) THE submission of learned Counsel for the 3rd respondent that since the application of the petitioner was incomplete, consideration of his application of priority basis did not arose, cannot be accepted. That is not the reason assigned in the impugned orders passed by the authorities. ( 8 ) FOR the reasons stated in the foregoing paragraphs, this Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned orders at Annexures-E and F are quashed. The matter is remitted back to the 2nd respondent for reconsideration and fresh disposal within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order keeping in view the priority clause and the entitlement of the petitioner thereunder. --- *** --- .