H. RANGAVITTALACHAR, J. ( 1 ) THE Deputy Commissioner for Food and Civil Supplies, Davangere - 2nd respondent herein, by a notification dated 16-3-1999, invited applications for grant of authorisation to run a fair price depot in Neelagunda Village, Harapanahally Taluk. Petitioner herein among others, had filed his applications. The petitioner was selected and was granted the authorisation. ( 2 ) THE 4th respondent herein who is the President of the Vyavasaya Seva Sahakara Bank Ltd. challenged the said grant of authorisation by filing an appeal under Rule 17 (1) of the Karnataka Essential Commodities (Public Distribution System) Control Order 1992 (Referred to as PDS Order for brevity) before the Commissioner for Food and Civil Supplies. The appellate authority has set aside the order of the Deputy Commissioner holding that the grant of authorisation will have the effect of depriving some of the cards allotted to the 4th respondent as they were transferred to the petitioner. Besides, it was also observed that the petitioner did not possess the requisite funds or was in possession of a shop. This order is questioned in this petition. ( 3 ) THE main ground of attack by the petitioner is that against the orders passed by the Deputy commissioner the 4th respondent could not have maintained an appeal under Rule 17 of the PDS Rules. In other words, the appellate authority had no jurisdiction to hear and decide the appeal. In support of the said contention, learned counsel read to me Rule 17 (1) of the PDS Rules and submitted that the language of Rule 17 (1) does not admit of providing a right of appeal to a person of the status of 4th respondent who had admittedly not filed any application in pursuance of the notification, for grant of authorisation. ( 4 ) IN answer to this learned counsel for the 4th respondent submitted that the words canceling or suspending an authorisation occurring in rule 17 (1) should be construed as to include the depriving of some of the cards of the 4th respondent and transferring It to the petitioner. He contended that the 4th respondent was already a holder of authorisation to run a fair price shop at Neelagunda Village and is allotted 1148 cards. He contended that the 4th respondent was already a holder of authorisation to run a fair price shop at Neelagunda Village and is allotted 1148 cards. By the authorisation granted in favour of the petitioner, 300 cards of the said Society will be transferred in favour of the petitioner without any justifiable cause, which affects its business. The society therefore, should be held as art aggrieved person within the meaning of Rule 17. Any other Interpretation will work injustice on such category of persons holding authorisation who will be made to lose sufficient cards for distribution of food grains and will be left without any remedy. ( 5 ) NO doubt the contention at first looked attractive. But, on a closer analysis it is difficult to accept the same. The Government of India in co-operation with the Government of Karnataka, in exercise of its power conferred under S. 5 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 has framed rules known as the Karnataka Essential Commodities (Public Distribution System) Control Order 1992 with the sole intention of making the public distribution system effective by regulating the same. Under the Scheme of the Rules, authorised agents are appointed for distributing the food articles to needy persons by issuing what is called as ration cards. The appointment of agents is governed by the procedure provided in the PDS Rules. As and when the designated authorities under the Rules feel the necessity of appointing authorised agents to distribute the food grains, they are obliged first to call for application from the intending aspirants through a notification issued and published on the notice board of authorised office as per Rule 4 of PDS Rules. Persons aspiring to be appointed as agents, if they fulfil the eligibility criteria stated in Rule 5, are entitled to apply. If there are more than one applications, all of them are taken together and the eligible applicants will be appointed as per the order of priority provided in Rule 6 of the PDS Rules. The appointed agents are to function strictly as per the terms and conditions of authorisation and the Rules. Any violation of such terms and conditions will be visited with the penalty of cancellation or suspension of the authorisation depending upon the gravity of violation, under Rule 12. The security deposit is also liable to be forfeited under Rule 15. The appointed agents are to function strictly as per the terms and conditions of authorisation and the Rules. Any violation of such terms and conditions will be visited with the penalty of cancellation or suspension of the authorisation depending upon the gravity of violation, under Rule 12. The security deposit is also liable to be forfeited under Rule 15. Rule 17 provides for a right of appeal to various categories of persons who are considered as aggrieved. Rule 17 is extracted herein with all its sub-clauses in order to appreciate the rival contentions Rule 17: (I) Any person aggrieved by an order of the authorised authority refusing to issue or renew an authorisation to cancelling or suspending an authorisation or forfeiting the security deposited by the authorised dealer under the provisions of this order may appeal to the Appellate Authority within thirty days of the date of receipt by him of such order. (ii) No such appeal shall be disposed of unless the aggrieved person has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. (iii) Pending the disposal of an appeal, the appellate authority may direct that the order under appeal shall not take effect until the appeal is disposed of. An analysis of Rule 17 clearly discloses that four categories of persons may file an appeal. (1) Persons whose application for grant of authorisation is refused; (2) Persons whose application for renewal of authorisation is refused; (3) Persons whose authorisation already granted is cancelled; (4) Persons whose authorisation granted is suspended or the security deposit is forfeited. The cancellation or suspension or forfeiture of the security deposit are those mentioned in Rule 12 and Rule 15 which is also extracted herein for ready reference. Rule 12: 1. The cancellation or suspension or forfeiture of the security deposit are those mentioned in Rule 12 and Rule 15 which is also extracted herein for ready reference. Rule 12: 1. No authorised dealer or fair price depot under this order or his agent or servant or any other person acting on his behalf, shall contravene any of the terms of conditions of the authorisation or the provisions of this order and if any such dealer or fair price depot or his agent or servant or any other person acting on his behalf contravenes any of the said terms of conditions or provisions, then without a prejudice to any other action that may be taken against him, his authorisation may be cancelled by order in writing by the Authorised Authority in respect of one or more of the essential commodities covered by that authorisation; provided that no order shall be made under this clause unless the authorised dealer or fair price depot has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. 2. If the authorised authority is satisfied that prima facie the conditions of the authorisation or the provisions of this order are contravened, it may notwithstanding anything in sub-clause (1), suspend the authorisation pending enquiry for cancellation of authorisation. Rule 15 : 1. Without prejudice to the provisions of clause 10, if the authorised authority is satisfied that the authorised dealer has contravened any of the terms or conditions of the authorisation or the provisions of this order and that a forfeiture of his security deposit is called for, it may, after giving the authorised dealer a reasonable opportunity of being heard, by order forfeit the whole or any part of the security deposited by him and communicate a copy of the order to the authorised dealer. 2. The authorised dealer shall, if the amount of security at any time falls short of the amount specified in clause 8, forthwith deposit further security to make up that amount on being required by the authorised authority to do so. 3. Upon the compliance by the authorised dealer with all the obligations under the authorisation, the amount of security or such part thereof, which is not forfeited as aforesaid shall be returned to the authorised dealer after the termination of authorisation. 3. Upon the compliance by the authorised dealer with all the obligations under the authorisation, the amount of security or such part thereof, which is not forfeited as aforesaid shall be returned to the authorised dealer after the termination of authorisation. ( 6 ) ADMITTEDLY, in the facts of the case, the 4th respondent's authorisation is not cancelled, suspended or security deposit is forfeited as per Rule 12 and 15 Nor it is the case of 4th respondent that he had made any application for grant of authorisation in pursuance of the notification referred to earlier and his application is rejected. Therefore, the 4th respondent will not fit into any one of five categories of aggrieved persons who have been conferred a right of appeal under Rule 17. The contention of the 4th respondent that transferring of 300 cards from the 4th respondent society and assigning it to the petitioner by the grant of authorisation will amount to cancelling of the authorisation of 300 cards, has no merit. Transferring of cards from authorisation holder to another by the principal cannot be equated to cancelling of authorisation. The two are different concepts one cannot be mixed up with the other. ( 7 ) THUS from the discussion made above, it is clear that the appeal of the 4th respondent before the Commissioner of Food and Civil Supplies was not maintainable. ( 8 ) IN the result, the writ petition is allowed. The impunged order passed vide annexure F is quashed. Petition allowed. --- *** --- .