K. L. MANJUNATH, J. ( 1 ) HEARD the Advocates for both the parties so also the Government Pleader. ( 2 ) AN authorisation to run a fair price depot was granted by the Deputy Commissioner, Mandya on 27-7-1995 in favour of the petitioner in W. P. No. 12408 of 2001. Authorisation granted in favour of the petitioner in W. P. No. 12408 of 2001 Smt. Bharathamma, was withdrawn by the Deputy Commissioner, Mandya on 23-11-1995 as per Annexure-G on the ground that petitioner was an employee of BPL and that she obtained authorisation without disclosing the same to the authorities. On 5-12-1995 as per Annexure-H Deputy Commissioner, Mandya granted authorisation to run the fair price depot in favour of the petitioner in w. P. No. 3932 of 2001 Smt. K, Manjula. Cancellation of the order of authorisation was challenged by the petitioner in W. P. No. 12408 of 2001 before the Commissioner of Director of Food and Civil Supplies who rejected the appeal on 7-2-1997 as per Annexure-J. Thereafter, a revision petition was filed before the Government. Government, by its order dated 23-11-2000 set aside the order of the Deputy Commissioner, mandya granting authorisation in favour of Smt. K. Manjula who is writ petitioner in W. P. No. 3932 of 2001 and directed the Deputy Commissioner to call for the applications and grant authorisation in accordance with law by setting aside the order passed by the Commissioner of Food and Civil Supplies dated 7-2-1997. Being aggrieved by the order of the government as per Annexure-K, dated 23-11-2000 these two writ petitions are filed. ( 3 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner in W. P. No. 12408 of 2001 contends that Deputy Commissioner was not right in granting the authorisation in favour of Smt. K. Manjula when her application as per annexure-A was rejected on the ground that Smt. Manjula did not produce the documents to show that she is having required funds and she is having accommodation to run the fair price depot. According to him, there was no need or necessity for the Deputy Commissioner to consider the case of Smt. Manjula alone without considering the applications of others. In other words, even though the authorisation granted in favour of Smt. Bharathamma has been cancelled, Deputy Commissioner should have called for fresh applications from the eligible candidates and should have considered all the applications. In other words, even though the authorisation granted in favour of Smt. Bharathamma has been cancelled, Deputy Commissioner should have called for fresh applications from the eligible candidates and should have considered all the applications. Therefore, he contends that the authorisation granted in favour of Smt. Manjula is bad in law and the same is require to be set aside. ( 4 ) PER contra, learned Counsel appearing for petitioner in W. P. No. 3932 of 2001 contends that the Government had no power to entertain a review petition and that the Government could not have set aside the authorisation granted in her favour and according to him she being a lady belongs to Schedule Tribe was entitled for authorisation. Accordingly, deputy Commissioner, considering the merits of her case, granted authorisation and that the same cannot be questioned by the petitioner he has also relied upon the judgment of this Court in M. Siddaramaiah v B. Nagaraju and Others. Relying upon this judgment, learned Counsel for the petitioner in W. P. No. 3932 of 2001 contends that the Government has no power to entertain a review and request this Court to set aside the order passed by the Government. He further contends that since his client is running a fair price depot, she may be permitted to continue thereby confirming the authorisation granted in her favour. ( 5 ) HAVING heard the Advocates, what is required to be considered by this Court is whether the Deputy Commissioner was justified in considering the application of Smt. Manjula alone without considering the applications filed by different persons along with Smt. Bharathamma. Deputy Commissioner has clearly stated that Smt. Manjula has failed to produce the documents to show that she is having sufficient funds to start or run a fair price depot and that she is also having premises to run the depot. Since she could not produce these documents, her application was not considered while granting authorisation to the petitioner in w. P. No. 12408 of 2001. But the very same Deputy Commissioner after cancelling the authorisation granted in favour of the petitioner in W. P. No. 12408 of 2001 without considering the financial stability of Smt. Manjula or her possessing a suitable premises to run a fair price depot and without considering the remaining applications filed along with smt. Bharathamma has considered the case of Smt. Manjula only. Bharathamma has considered the case of Smt. Manjula only. Therefore, it is clear that Deputy Commissioner has committed an error in considering the application of Smt. Manjula alone without considering the merits and demerits of the remaining applicants. Therefore, this court has to hold that the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, mandya granting authorisation in favour of the petitioner K. Manjula as per Annexure-H in W. P. No. 12408 of 2001 is to be quashed and that the deputy Commissioner, Mandya is to be directed to invite applications afresh from the eligible candidates and to consider the case of Smt. Manjula on par with other applicants. ( 6 ) ACCORDINGLY, both these writ petitions are disposed of directing the Deputy Commissioner, Mandya to call for fresh applications, to grant authorisation to run a fair price depot at T. Bellekere village and he shall complete the process within three months from the date of receipt of this order. Till such time, petitioner-Smt. Manjula is permitted to run a fair price depot. It is needless to state that if such notification is made by the Deputy Commissioner, Mandya, Smt. Manjula is also entitled to file her application and her case shall also be considered by the Deputy commissioner, Mandya on merits along with other applicants. --- *** --- .