ORDER Hari Nath Tilhari, J.—Heard Sri B.R. Satenahalli, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Sri B.G. Sridharan assisted by Sri Satish Kumar learned Counsel on behalf of second Respondent and the learned Government Counsel Sri B.H. Satish for Respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 4. 2. By this petition, the Petitioner has challenged the order dated 22.5.2000 contained in Annexure 'H' issued by Director of Agriculture Produce Market Committee. The facts of the case in nut shell are that the Petitioner-firm had applied for grant of licence to carry on business in premises No. 80/1, 3rd Main, APMC Yard, Bangalore where according to the Petitioner, he was carrying on business from 1987. There is no dispute that the Petitioner on 24/30.11.1993 had been allotted shop cum godown No. 15/20 in Garlic Complex, APMC Yard, Bangalore. The Petitioner thereafter made an application for renewal of his licence in respect of shop No. 80/1, 3rd Main, APMC Yard, Bangalore. This application was made before the Market Committee. But, the Market Committee after consideration of the matter rejected the application for renewal of licence with reference to shop No. 80/1 and sent an endorsement to the Petitioner that licence for shop premises bearing No. 80/1 cannot be renewed. Feeling aggrieved from the order of the Market Committee, refusing to renew the licence with respect to shop No. 80/1, the Petitioner filed an appeal under Section 74 of the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing Regulation Act, 1966. 3. The Director of Agricultural Marketing who is the Appellate Authority, after having heard the arguments of the parties and after having considered the respective contentions and the materials, by order dated 22.5.2000 vide Annexure "H" to the writ petition dismissed the Petitioner's appeal and maintained the order passed by the Market Committee rejecting the Petitioner's application for renewal of premises No. 80/1, 3rd Main, APMC Yard, Bangalore. The Appellate Authority as well as the Market Committee took into consideration the facts of the Petitioner having got a shop-cum-godown No. 15/20 in the Garlic Complex, APMC Yard, Bangalore and as such it opined that there was no justification for the Petitioner to have any other or to continue with premises bearing No. 80/1 and the Market Committee rejected the application for renewal of license and the Appellate Court maintained the same. Feeling aggrieved from the judgment and order of the Appellate Authority, Annexure "H" dated 22.5.2000, the Petitioner has come up before this Court by way of this writ petition. It may be mentioned here that as mentioned in the writ petition, there were two earlier petitions, also filed by the Petitioner namely Writ Petition No. 16865 of 1997 and Writ Petition No. 24896 of 1997 with reference to this shop No. 80/1. Nodoubt, the learned Single Judge in these cases ordered the Market Committee to consider the Petitioner's application for that shop No. 80/1. 4. Sri B.R. Satenahalli, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that on the basis of this order that Market Committee should have allotted and should have renewed the licence with reference to shop No. 80/1 and it did not act according to law in rejecting the application. He further submitted that the shop No. 15/20 nodoubt, has been allotted to a firm bearing the same name as the Petitioner but the Petitioner is not the allottee and the licence holder of the said shop. The learned Counsel contended that there are two partnership firms. In one partnership firm, there are four partners which partnership was established in 1987 and in the second partnership firm, there are only two partners and not all the four. And therefore, the two partnership firms are distinct entities and so there has been no question of allotting and granting licence to the Petitioner with respect to two shops in the market. 5. I am unable to express this contention. Nodoubt, in the earlier writ petitions, the Hon'ble learned Single Judges have directed the Market Committee to consider the application made by the Petitioner in respect of shop bearing No. 80/1. The Direction to consider the application should not be taken nor be interpreted as that the Single Judges have directed that the licence should be granted with respect to shop No. 80/1. The authority had to consider according to law and according to the schemes of social justice concept enshrined in the Constitution. It is a well settled principle of law even the constitution with the ownership and control of material resource of community are to be so distributed as to the best service of common good. The authority had to consider according to law and according to the schemes of social justice concept enshrined in the Constitution. It is a well settled principle of law even the constitution with the ownership and control of material resource of community are to be so distributed as to the best service of common good. And another Directive Principle of State Policy directing the State is to see that it secures the operation of economic system be such that it does not result in concentration of wealth or means of production to the common detriment as well as to seek that no monopolies are allowed to be established by few rich persons whether in the field of marketing area or others. 6. Keeping this principle that means of production and the material resources of community are distributed for common good, definitely efforts have to be made and it is to be seen in the case of allotment of shops in the market area or market yard that, shops may be available to as many persons or say to as many traders as possible so that they can run their business and earn their livelihood and it should not be allotted in such a fashion or manner that major portion of the shops may go to one single person or group of persons to the detriment of rest. By keeping this aspect of the matter, the market committee had formulated ordinary policy that ordinarily, no more than one shop is to be allotted to a new trader or group of traders such as partnership firms, then it cannot be said to be contrary to law or scheme of the Constitution. The instrumentalities of the State are part of the State and in extending largesses and benefits such as allotment of shops or privileges are definitely required to keep these basic principles of law in view and if they act keeping these basic principles of law and exercise their powers, those instrumentalities cannot be said to have acted in violation of the act. 7. In the present case, nodoubt Haroon had tried to show to be very clever. He had been allotted shop No. 15/20 in Garlic Complex. His case is that it was nodoubt, allotted in the name of M/s. Haroon Abdul Karim and Company. It was established in 1987 and it had four partners. 7. In the present case, nodoubt Haroon had tried to show to be very clever. He had been allotted shop No. 15/20 in Garlic Complex. His case is that it was nodoubt, allotted in the name of M/s. Haroon Abdul Karim and Company. It was established in 1987 and it had four partners. Who are the partners of the firm? None but Haroon and his three sons. It appears that with the object to grab another shop, they tried to play with the law. As per their case, they established another partnership firm bearing the name Abdul Karim and Company i.e., bearing the same name as the first one with two partners and none else but the first two partners or members of the earlier partnership namely Haroon and his elder son Rafiq. This was an attempt to take another shop in the same Market area. The authorities applied their mind and considered to these aspects and on that ground, refused to renew the licence for the shop bearing No. 80/1 in 3rd Main, APMC Yard, Bangalore. The authorities rejected that application for renewal and the appeal was dismissed. 8. The order in question passed by the Market Committee or by the Appellate Authority can not be said to suffer from any error of law or error of jurisdiction. In this view of the matter as indicated above, the writ Petitioner has got no merits, it has to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.