Order In this writ petition the petitioner has sought for a direction to the District Magistrate, Patna, the S.D. O., Patna, Sadar and the Rationing Officer of Patna, Ranchi, Dhanbad and Jamshedpur (respondents no.2 to 7 respectively), who are licence granting authorities under the provisions of the Bihar Control Order, 1984, to the effect that while they grant licences to new Public Distribution System dealers (in short 'P.D.S. dealer'), they must observe strictly the order/guideline issued by the Union of India from time to time for the rural areas or urban areas. 2. The petitioners claim to be a registered Association having registration no. 2525 dated 6.8.1981 under Trade Union Act, 1926 with its Head Office at Bhikhna Pahari, Saidpur, Patna 4 and that all P.D.S. dealers of the State of Bihar are its members and the petitioner ssociation is a representative body of the P.D.S. dealers. 3. It is, however, not claimed that the Secretary through whom this writ petition has been filed is competent and/or authorised to file the present writ petition on behalf of the Association. Under such circumstances alone, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. However, since the learned counsel for the petitioner has argued the matter on merit, this Court feels persuaded to consider the same also. 4. According to Mr. Deogovind Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, P.D.S. is the scheme of the Union of India introduced in exercise of the power under section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 for which certain norms and guidelines have been laid down in March, 1987, vide Annexure 2. According to him, clause 2 of the aforementioned guidelines for opening of new fair price shops in a State and Union Territory, population of 2000 persons has been fixed though with certain exceptions contained therein. The aforementioned requirement has been fixed keeping in view the viability of the existing shops and their margin of profit. The State Governmet, however, fixed a population of 1900 persons in rural areas and 1350 in urban areas, vide letter no. 4021 dated 14.7.1987. Learned counsel submitted that the said decision of the State Government is contrary to the statutory guidelines issued by the Union of India. The State Governmet, however, fixed a population of 1900 persons in rural areas and 1350 in urban areas, vide letter no. 4021 dated 14.7.1987. Learned counsel submitted that the said decision of the State Government is contrary to the statutory guidelines issued by the Union of India. In this regard it is claimed that the petitioner-Association drew the attention of the Secretary, Food, Supply and Commerce (respondent no.1), but till today no heed has been paid to the said grievance and the respondents have been granting new licences without following the said guidelines. In this regard he also referred to the chart given at Annexure 6 to show that no uniform criteria is being followed for opening of such P.D.S. shops. 5. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Sub-divisional Officer, Arwal in which the fact regarding grant of new licences for opening of P.D.S. shops not strictly in accordance with rules and guidelines has been denied. It is asserted that so far Arwal sub-division is concerned, new licences are granted strictly in accordance with rules and instructions issued from time to time. 6. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that there is no substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Even according to the provisions contained in the guidelines (Annexure 2), there is no such mandatory requirement that the P.D.S. shops should be opened on the population of 2000 persons. What is mentioned in clause 2 of the said guidelines is that there was suggestion only in regard to the above and the shops are required to be opened keeping in view the density of population and area etc. 7. This Court finds substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the State. Clause 2(1) only mentions about the suggestion given for opening of a shop on the population of 2000 persons but keeping in view the density of population and area etc., exceptions can be made. From reading of the said provision it would appear that the real object is to give benefit to the consumers and as such it is directed' that while considering the aforementioned facts for opening of shop it should be established that the consumers should not be made to travel beyond 3 Kms for reaching the P.D.S. shop. 8. From reading of the said provision it would appear that the real object is to give benefit to the consumers and as such it is directed' that while considering the aforementioned facts for opening of shop it should be established that the consumers should not be made to travel beyond 3 Kms for reaching the P.D.S. shop. 8. It is not the case of the petitioner that by establishing shops in the State of Bihar on the basis of different population in the area, the consumers have been made to suffer or that the consumers in any particular area are to travel beyond 3 Kms. to reach the P.D.S. shop. 9. Under such circumstances, this Court does not find any merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed.