ORDER Dipak Misra, J. The two writ petitions were heard analogously and are disposed of by this common order. We think it appropriate to narrate the circumstances under which both the petitions were linked up. W.P. 4752/1998 was presented on 5-10-1998 and notices were issued on 8-10-1998. The matter was listed again on 22-2-1999 and on that day the Learned Counsel for the respondents was required to file reply within two weeks. On 12-3-1999 the Learned Counsel for the petitioner mentioned that a public interest litigation relating to the same subject-matter had been filed by Nagrik Upbhokta Manch forming subject-matter of W.P. No. 747/99. Because of the aforesaid submission it was directed for listing of both the applications together. The purpose of adumberating to the aforesaid scenario is that as serious objections were raised by the learned Deputy Advocate General with regard to locus standi of the petitioner in W.P. No. 4752/1998 to maintain a public interest litigation, the other writ petition was filed by the Upbhokta Manch canvassing the cause of the consumers to bring it within the purview of public interest litigation. In this factual backdrop both the applications were heard together. We may state at the outset that in W.P. No. 4752/1998 numerous factual averments have been made and many a ground has been taken, which in our considered opinion are irrelevant, and hence, we would refrain from referring to those grounds. We would confine ourselves to the basic, essential and similar aspects which find mention in both the writ petitions. The moot question that arises for consideration is whether the State Government has the authority to fix a uniform price for sale of kerosene throughout the State as per the Kerosene (Restriction on use and Fixation of Ceiling Prices) Order, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1993 Order"). To answer this core question we may briefly refer to the relevant facts. As averred, the Director, Food and Supply issued a letter dated 25-5-1998 to all the Collectors in the State of M.P. for fixation of price of kerosene under the public distribution system. It was stated in the said letter that the retail price of kerosene is fixed at Rs. 3.20 per liter. The Director further directed that the price should be rounded up in a particular formula. According to the petitioner in W.P. No. 4752/1998 the Director referred to the benefit derived in certain districts. It was stated in the said letter that the retail price of kerosene is fixed at Rs. 3.20 per liter. The Director further directed that the price should be rounded up in a particular formula. According to the petitioner in W.P. No. 4752/1998 the Director referred to the benefit derived in certain districts. He also directed that the money collected due to rounding up of the figure should be deposited in the account of the Collector. In pursuance of the aforesaid letter the Collector, Jabalpur vide order dated 27-8-1998 directed all the dealers to sell kerosene at that price and to deposit differential sum in the bank account of the Collector before 7th of each month. Along with the said order a Chart showing the ex-depot price of the Oil Companies Sales Tax, surcharge, commission of the wholesaler, his transport charges, sale price per Kilo Liter and per barrel, the difference amount per barrel, commission of semi wholesaler per barrel, distance between the wholesaler and retailers selling point, retailers transport charges etc., and the rounding up amount to be deposited by the dealers were stated. A similar letter issued by the Collector, Satna has also been brought on record. Letter issued by the Director, Collector Jabalpur and Collector, Satna have been brought on record as Annexures 4 to 6 respectively. The petitioner in W.P. No. 4752/1998 who is a licensed dealer of kerosene (hereinafter referred to as 'the dealer') and Nagrik Upbhokta Margdarshak Manch the writ petitioner in W.P. No. 747/1999 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Manch') have assailed the aforesaid action of functionaries of the State. It is worth noting here that the dealer has also assailed the commission given to him by the State Government being violative of the direction relating to grant of commission issued by the Central Government. We do hereby make it clear that we are not inclined to address ourselves to the fixation of the commission in respect of a dealer as such a grievance can be agitated in a properly constituted petition before a learned Single Bench of this Court. We would only advert to the issue relating to the authority of the State Government in issuing direction for rounding up the price of the kerosene oil. We would only advert to the issue relating to the authority of the State Government in issuing direction for rounding up the price of the kerosene oil. It is averred in both the writ petitions that the State Government has no authority under the 1993 Order to charge more than the declared price and it has no power to round up the price. It is also averred that the power vests with the Central Government for fixing the price of kerosene and the State Government cannot assume authority to enhance the charge for any area on the guise of rounding up. It is also putforth that the deposit of the rounding up amount in the Collector's account is totally incorrect and opens flood gate for corruption. In W.P. No. 747/1999 it is pleaded that the consumers are affected seriously by such fixation and they are being asked to pay more which is not legally collectable. A return has been filed by the State and its functionaries resisting the stand of the petitioners. A preliminary objection has been taken with regard to locus standi of the petitioner in W.P. No. 4572/1998 on the ground that at his behest a public interest litigation is not tenable as he is a dealer and has personal interest in the matter. It is also putforth that by notification dated 30- 11-1974 the Central Government in exercise of powers conferred by section 5 of the Essential Commodities Act delegated the powers u/s 3 to the State Government in respect of all the essential commodities other than food stuff and fertilizers for the purpose of maintaining or increasing the supplies of essential commodities, for securing available distribution and availability at fair prices so as to achieve proper Regulation, production supply and distribution thereof and trade and commerce therein. Reliance has also been placed on the Control Order of 1993 to highlight that the State Government in order to achieve the aforesaid purpose can include other charges which are incurred for the purpose of securing equitable distribution and availability of the essential commodities to all concerned. Reliance has also been placed on the Control Order of 1993 to highlight that the State Government in order to achieve the aforesaid purpose can include other charges which are incurred for the purpose of securing equitable distribution and availability of the essential commodities to all concerned. It has also been averred that in exercise of Clause 2(d) of the 1993 Order the Central Government has specified the selling price in relation to specified depots of the oil companies, r and thereafter, the State Government had declared the prices for different places but this led to exploitation of the consumers as well as confusion as the declared prices of the kerosene varied from area to area and place to place as the oil price was dependent on the distance of the places from the depots of the oil companies. The variation in retail price was between 60 paise to 70 paise a litre. To avoid this and to provide a uniform rate the State Government fixed the declared price of kerosene at Rs. 3/- per liter in the year 1994-1995, which was subsequently increased to Rs. 3.20 in the year 1996. Not a singular consumer or a dealer was affected by such fixation. However, when the price was increased by 5 paise i.e. upto Rs. 3.25 per liter in the year 1998, some dealers have felt aggrieved. It is also highlighted in the return that previously in the system of public distribution of kerosene a series and chains of dealers were involved, namely, wholesaler semi-sellers and retailers as a result of which the price of kerosene was drastically increased and in view of the involvement of the dealers the consumers were not assured of proper supply of kerosene and therefore, in the year 1992 the State Government took a policy decision to ensure distribution of kerosene through co-operative societies. It is also stated that a scheme called "Tail Doot Scheme" was implemented in the State of Madhya Pradesh according to which kerosene is directly lifted by wholesale dealers from the depots of the oil companies and directly delivered to the retail-sellers thereby doing away with the involvement of semi-wholesalers in the scheme of distribution of kerosene. However, the problem could not be solved as storage facilities were not available with the retail dealers. However, the problem could not be solved as storage facilities were not available with the retail dealers. Hence, efforts were made to make available storage Tanks and drums to the fair price shops which, in fact, distribute kerosene among the consumers. It is putforth that huge amount is to be spent for providing these facilities for which the rounding up method has been adopted. It is also putforth that out of the rounding up amount certain wholesale dealers are compensated. It is also pleaded that where the price is more than the actual cost incurred by the wholesale dealers the balance amount is to be spent for speedy and proper supply of the kerosene to the consumers. In paragraph 16 of the counter affidavit it has been categorised how the amount will be spent. It is apposite to reproduce the same: "16. It is respectfully submitted that suitable instructions have been issued by the answering respondents to the effect that rounding off amount shall be deposited in separate account and shall be utilised only for specific purpose namely strengthening and improving public distribution system in the concerned district by procuring: (a) storage Tank and drums; (b) constructing and erecting proper storage area and their maintenance and up-keep in small and remote villages provided that such facility does not already exist and if has existence has not been repaired or upgraded in the last 3 years; (c) Constructing stores house, shop-cum-Godown of the size of 50 mt. tonne provided that the construction is complete within 12 months; (d) One time expenditure of Rs. 50,000/- in (i) Fundamental Office facility (ii) Communication and training (iii) Providing incentive and award for outstanding achievement or performance (iv) auditing and accounts etc. (e) One time investigation upto Rs. 50,000/- or more for procuring transport vehicle to ensure adequate and continuous supply of kerosene to remote villages and areas; (f) compensating those districts where loss is suffered due to fixation of price. (e) One time investigation upto Rs. 50,000/- or more for procuring transport vehicle to ensure adequate and continuous supply of kerosene to remote villages and areas; (f) compensating those districts where loss is suffered due to fixation of price. It is respectfully submitted that each and every paise of the rounding off amount shall be duly accounted for and was only to spent for strengthening and for ensuring proper functioning of public distribution system to ensure the due adequate and continuous supply of kerosene and each and every comer of the State of M.P." A rejoinder has been filed by the petitioner which reiterates the stand taken in the writ petition and challenging Tail Doot Scheme being violative of the order passed by the Secretary, Food and Supplies Department. That apart some controversy is clarified with regard to licence of the petitioner with which we are not really concerned. An additional return has been filed on behalf of the respondents indicating that 'Tail Doot Yojna' has been implimented in all urban areas and it is in full operation since 1-4-1998. It is also putforth that 'Tail Doot Yojna' is not in operation where population is less than one lac and in those areas Doorstep Delivery Scheme, 1992 is in operation and therein lead co-operative societies function as semi wholesalers and directly lift kerosene from the wholesalers and deliver it to retailer/fair price shop. It is also highlighted that though most of the areas involvement in semi wholesalers have been totally excluded in the distribution of the essential commodities in the State of M.P., it is only in rural areas where scheme Ann Doot and Tail Doot Scheme are not possible to be implemented their lead co-operative societies at block levels are involved in the distribution of kerosene as semi wholesalers. Apart from this, clarification which pertains to the letter of Secretary further distribution has been given and the action of rounding up has been justified. It is worthnoting hence that this Court by order dated 12-4-1999 directed the counsel of the State to supply a chart indicating the supply of kerosene from main depot to the wholesaler and sub-dealer and eventually to the customers at actual price in various districts of the State. The said chart has been filed on 12-7-1999. It is worthnoting hence that this Court by order dated 12-4-1999 directed the counsel of the State to supply a chart indicating the supply of kerosene from main depot to the wholesaler and sub-dealer and eventually to the customers at actual price in various districts of the State. The said chart has been filed on 12-7-1999. We may point out here that certain applications were filed by the petitioner in WP No. 4752/1998 for taking steps against the respondents and requiring them to produce all the original records in respect of differential amount of each districts. The objections were filed by the functionaries of the State in oppugnation to the same. We hereby make it clear that we would not like to deal with the aforesaid aspect as we are of the considered view, that the said controversy does not require adjudication in presenti and in any case, relates to a factual dispute altogether. In view of the aforesaid factual backdrop the heart of the matter is whether the State Government can round up the price and if so whether it would come within a concept of declared price as defined in the 1993 Order. Mr. J.P. Sanghi, Learned Counsel for the petitioner in WP No. 4752/1998 and Mr. N.C. Beohar, Learned Counsel for the petitioner in WP No. 747/1999 have urged with vehemence that such a power does not float from 1993 Order. They have also placed reliance on the decision rendered in the case of Sharad Chand Tiwari vs. State, M.P. No. 1944/83. Mr. Jha, learned Dy. A.G. for the State, resisting the aforesaid contentions of the Learned Counsel for the petitioners has canvassed that by taking into consideration the role ascribed to the State Government for equitable and proper distribution of essential commodities an onerous duty is cast on the State to make infrastructure available in the distribution and when huge amount is spent that can be included while fixing the price and such inclusion cannot be faulted with. As far as the decision rendered in the case of Sharadchandra Tiwari vs. State Government (supra). It is canvassed that the said decision is not applicable to the present factual scenario inasmuch the facts are quite different and in any case there has been a lot of change in the kerosene (Fixation of Ceiling Price) Order 1970 and the Order of 1993. It is canvassed that the said decision is not applicable to the present factual scenario inasmuch the facts are quite different and in any case there has been a lot of change in the kerosene (Fixation of Ceiling Price) Order 1970 and the Order of 1993. Before we advert to deal with the authority of the State Government, we would like to address ourselves whether the decision rendered in the case of Sharadchandra Tiwari (supra) renders any assistance to the petitioners. In the aforesaid case the Collector, Jabalpur by order dated 30-7-1983 fixed the Selling Price of Kerosene Oil at the rate of Rs. 2.05 per litre. It was contended before this Court that such fixation is violation of Kerosene (Fixation of Ceiling Price) Order, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1970 Order'). It was putforth before this Court that the Collector had fixed the price at Rs. 2.02 per litre but considering the fact that the coins of 0.02 paise were not minted the said price was rounded up to Rs. 2.05 per litre with a direction that the difference of 0.03 paise per litre shall be deposited by the dealer in advance to the credit under the Head "000-Samajik Shuraksh Tath Kalyan 'K' Civil Turti" in the government treasury. this Court considering the factual scenario and the stand of the parties came to hold as follows:-- "It is a known fact that kerosene is produced by the public sector undertakings and is in short supply. It is equally well known that the poor and down-troddens are the persons mostly deponent of kerosene oil for light and fuel. In this context, therefore, it would so the bounden duty of the State to protect those poor and down troddens from paying any extra amount. It is not the case of the State Government that the benefit of the extra amount so collected would eventually be passed on the consumers of kerosene oil. It may be that the benefit of the amount is ultimately received by the consumers in the same way as may be available to the others in the society. It is therefore, a case where the persons needing care of the State are required to contribute for financing a scheme of general welfare likely to be framed by the State. This cannot be done except by the authority of law. It is therefore, a case where the persons needing care of the State are required to contribute for financing a scheme of general welfare likely to be framed by the State. This cannot be done except by the authority of law. The Law only relevant for such a charge, is the Kerosene Control Order. The Order does not permit the Collector to change anything for the State. Its scope is limited only to fixation of selling price. Various components or selling price are given in Rule 3 of the order which does not include such a change. Under the circumstances, it is obvious that levy of excess amount of 0.03 paise per litre is outside the authority of the Collector acting under the Order." From the aforesaid it is graphically clear that this Court interpreted the 1970 Order' and opined that the said order did not confer any authority on the State Government to do any arrangement for rounding up. Mr. Jha, learned Deputy Advocate General, has urged that the aforesaid decision is distinguishable both, in law and facts. It is his submission that on the earlier occasion the State Government except putforthing a bald stand that 0.02 paise coins were no longer minted, nothing else was putforth, but the present case depicts a different scenario altogether. It is canvassed by him that in the return the State Government has clearly putforth that it has introduced various schemes and the efforts have been made by it to make the kerosene oil available at cheap and uniform rates, to all the consumers of the State and that too in a regular manner. As far as source of power is concerned, submission of Mr. Jha is that there is gulf of difference between the 1970 Order and 1993 Order. It is proponed by him that in the 1970 order certain parameters were fixed for fixing the price whereas the same is not the case under 1993 Order. Mr. Sanghi and Mr. Beohar, Learned Counsel for the petitioners, in both the writ petitions have urged with vehemence that there is no distinction between the two orders but an artificial interpretation is given by the State Government to cover up its folly. To appreciate the rival submissions raised at the Bar it is apposite to refer to Clause 3 of the 1970 Order. Beohar, Learned Counsel for the petitioners, in both the writ petitions have urged with vehemence that there is no distinction between the two orders but an artificial interpretation is given by the State Government to cover up its folly. To appreciate the rival submissions raised at the Bar it is apposite to refer to Clause 3 of the 1970 Order. It reads as follows:-- "Fixation of maximum selling price of Kerosene.-- On and from the date of commencement of this Order, no dealer shall sell Kerosene to any person at a price which is in excess of the declared price which shall include the following namely:-- (a) the Schedule price; (b) the increase or decrease, if any, in Central duties after the 1st day of June, 1970, as the Central Government may by notification in the Official Gazette, specify in this behalf; (c) (i) the rate of dealer's commission at rupees eight per kilo litre; (ii) reimbursement, if allowed by the State Government or with the previous approval of the State Government, by the District Collector, or the Deputy Commissioner of the area as the case may be, or if allowed by the Administrator of a Union territory, by notification in the Official Gazette of any extraordinary expenditure which the dealers may have to incur local conditions; (d) (i) the railway freight actually payable on the 1st June, 1970 for transporting the quantity of Kerosene from the nearest port of installation or the refinery, as the case may be to the place of sale and the increase or decrease if any in such freight after that date; (ii) the road transportation charges actually payable on the 1st day of June, 1970, for the transportation of supplies of Kerosene by road by the dealer from the nearest storage or selling point of any oil company to the place of sale, as the State Government or with the previous approval of the State Government, the District Collector or the Deputy Commissioner of the area or the Administrator of a Union Territory, as the case may be, may having regard to the transportation charges payable for the transportation goods by the shortest route, and allow the increase or decrease therein, if any after the date; Provided that for the sale of Kerosene in the State of Assam, Meghalaya, Nagaland, Manipur and Tripura and Union Territories of Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh, a flat transportation surcharge in lieu of charges specified in Sub-clauses (i) and (ii) shall be added as shown at item II of the Schedule appended to this Order; (e) the sales tax and any other local tax payable on the 1st day of June, 1970 on the quantity of Kerosene and the increase or decrease, if any, therein after that date; (f) the price of container as shown in item III of the Schedule appended to this Order for all supplies of Kerosene in eighteen decimal five litre tins; (g) the surcharge, if any, over the basic ceiling selling prices, mentioned in the Schedule appended to this Order which may be imposed by the Central Government from time to time." The language of 1993 Order is quite different. Clause 2(d) of the Order defines "Declared Price". It reads as under:-- "declared price" in relation to kerosene sold under the public distribution system means the maximum selling price declared by the Central Government from time to time with reference to an area and shall include such other charges, rates, duties and taxes, prescribed -- (i) by the State Government or District Collector in the case of an area in a State, or (ii) by the Administrator of the Union Territory in the case of an area in a Union Territory;" In view of the aforesaid change in the order it cannot be said that the decision rendered in the case of Sharad Chand Tiwari (supra) is a precedent on the point. It is not disputed at the Bar that in absence of such a power the act of rounding up is impermissible. It is also not disputed that the rounding up can be permitted for proper and equitable distribution of Kerosene Oil if such a power flows from the legitimate source. Scanning the anatomy of the earlier order and order in vogue, it is luminously clear that in the 1970 Order the scope of fixation of Selling Price was absolutely limited and, in fact, as observed in the case of Sharad Chand Tiwari (supra) various compartments were specifically mentioned and, therefore, the competent authority had no jurisdiction to travel beyond the same or transgress the same. But in 1993 Order such compartments are not being mentioned and such confines have not been stated. On the contrary, "Declared Price" as defined under Clause 2(d) of the 1993 Order includes "Such other charges, rates, duty and taxes" a power has been conferred by the State Government or the District Collector in the case of an area in the State. Submission of Mr. Jha is that 'such other charges' would include building of infrastructure for equitable and proper supply of kerosene oil to the people living in the interior villages of Madhya Pradesh. It is highlighted by him that the Public Distribution System cannot function in a vacuum. It is submitted by him that it is the duty of the State Government to ensure an equitable distribution and availability of essential commodities throughout the State. We have referred to the stand taken by the State Government in detail while narrating the facts. It is highlighted by him that the Public Distribution System cannot function in a vacuum. It is submitted by him that it is the duty of the State Government to ensure an equitable distribution and availability of essential commodities throughout the State. We have referred to the stand taken by the State Government in detail while narrating the facts. As a policy decision the State Government has in certain areas eliminated the sole wholesalers and in certain areas Lead Co-operative Societies have been appointed as semi-wholesalers for equitable distribution of kerosene oil. For the purpose of proper and equitable distribution of kerosene oil it is pre-requisite that there has to be arrangement for storage facility, engagement of vehicles for carrying the kerosene oil to the interior places and making provision for such other ancillary infrastructural requirements. Judicial Notice can be taken note of the fact that Madhya Pradesh is a large geographical area and people reside in interior villages which are not easily approachable. It is not out of place to take note of the fact that most of the population remain in rural areas and belong to Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribes and other backward Castes. Their financial condition is not good and they mostly depend upon kerosene oil for cooking and illumination. In such a background it is incumbent that the kerosene oil must reach the door steps of the consumers who look forward in hope that it would be made easily available to them. The State Government by, introducing certain schemes has, in fact, made a laudable attempt for supply of kerosene oil to the consumers at large, mostly, to the rural consumers. A selling price has been fixed so that there is proper control over the distribution and there is no anguish or agony in the locality or an area due to differentiation in price. To eradicate the problem of mal-distribution the State Government has taken upon itself the onerous burden for laying down the infrastructures for storage and transport and for proper and adequate supply of kerosene oil to the people at large. Mr. Sanghi and Mr. Beohar, Learned Counsel for the petitioners, have strenuously urged that the efforts of the State Government may be praise worthy but it does not has the sanction of law as the 1993 Order is silent in this regard. We are unable to accept such a contention. Mr. Sanghi and Mr. Beohar, Learned Counsel for the petitioners, have strenuously urged that the efforts of the State Government may be praise worthy but it does not has the sanction of law as the 1993 Order is silent in this regard. We are unable to accept such a contention. After perusing in detail the stand of the State Government and the purpose behind it, we are of the considered view that the State Government is obligated to make arrangements for supply of kerosene oil to every consumer within the State and to achieve such an end if certain amount is spent that can be added towards the price of kerosene oil and that would come within the ambit and sweep of "such other charges". The amount included in the price cannot be a foundation for grievance of a consumer on the ground that he has been asked to pay more because his residence is nearer to depot, and therefore, such a price cannot be imposed upon. Though such a contention is attractive at first look, it melts insignificance if the concept of equitable and proper distribution of an essential commodity is kept in view. We see no justification to give a narrow meaning to the words "such other charges" as we think that they do encompass a broder spectrum and a wider horizon. We cannot be oblivious of the fact that in the 1993 Order, 'rates, duties and taxes' have been mentioned and that apart such other charges have also been incorporated. If a huge amount is required to be spent so that supply can reach the door step, there is no reason why such an expense cannot be included in the conceptual eventuality and connotative explanation of the words "the other charges". A welfare State has a duty towards its citizens and for collective good, an individual benefit has to give way. Law is legislated for providing maximum good for public at large. In view of this we repel the submission of Mr. Sanghi and accept the contention of Mr. Jha. At this stage we may repeat at the cost of repetition that we have refrained from dealing with the individual rights of a dealer with regard to the grant of commission contrary to the rates fixed by the Central Government. It would be open to the petitioner-dealer to assail the same in appropriate writ petition. Jha. At this stage we may repeat at the cost of repetition that we have refrained from dealing with the individual rights of a dealer with regard to the grant of commission contrary to the rates fixed by the Central Government. It would be open to the petitioner-dealer to assail the same in appropriate writ petition. We may hasten to add here that Mr. Sanghi during his submissions has made a colossus allegation that amount is being deposited in the Collector's account so that it can be embezelled and utilised for the purposes other than it is meant for. Mr. Sanghi has also highlighted that lacs of rupees are collected from Jabalpur and other districts but proper accounts are not maintained. Mr. Jha has submitted that the amount is deposited in the Collector's account so that immediate steps can be taken for spending the money needed for supply of kerosene oil. It is also urged by him that the stand of the petitioner that more money is collected but less is shown is factually incorrect. To substantiate the same he has referred to the documents filed by the respondents. We are not going to advert to the aforesaid in detail. We only observe that the State and its functionaries shall utilise the amount deposited in Collector's account only for the purposes which would facilitate the supply of kerosene oil throughout the State. We hope and trust that at no point of time there would be any deviation. If a laudable attempt has been made to lessen the agony of the poor, let the State rise up to the occasion and do its duty in the most dutiful manner. We are sure that when concrete allegations would be made with regard to diversion or misutilisation of funds the functionaries of the State would conduct themselves and make the whole scenario transparent. We hope and trust that eventually transparency shall prevail. We say no more. In view of our preceding analysis the writ petitions are sans merit and accordingly they are dismissed. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to costs.