MANJUNATH, J. ( 1 ) THE Deputy Commissioner, Kolar invited applications from the general public to grant authorization to run a fair price depot at Pindipapanahalli village of Sidlaghatta Taluk in Kolar district for the benefit of residents of Pindipapanahalli, Beerapanahalli and Bommanahalli villages as per notification dated 28. 8. 2002 which is produced as Annexure-A to the Writ petition. Out of three villages, two villages viz. , Pindipapanahalli and Beerappanahalli are situated within the Gram Panchayat of Kothanur village, Bommanahalli is included within the grama Panchayat of Devaramallur village of Sidlaghatta Taluk. 1st petitioner as well as R-5 filed applications for grant of authorisation. Deputy Commissioner, Kolar rejected the application of 1st petitioner on the ground that he did not submit the application within 30 days from the date of notification and granted authorisation in favour of R5. Being aggrieved by the orders of the Deputy Commissioner, petitioners along with R-6 to 8 filed an appeal before the commissioner and Director of Food and Civil Supplies, Bangalore in Appeal No. 73/ 2002-03. The said appeal was rejected by the Commissioner on 26. 3. 2004 contending that the application filed by the 1st petitioner was barred by limitation. Being aggrieved by the orders of the Deputy commissioner, Kolar granting authorisation in favour of R-5 and confirmation of the said order by the Commissioner of Food and Civil Supplies, Bangalore, present petition is filed. ( 2 ) HEARD the Counsel for the parties. ( 3 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner, rejection of the application of the petitioner by the Deputy commissioner is bad in law. According to him, Annexure-A was notified by the Deputy commissioner on 28. 8. 2002. Under Clause 4 of the The Karnataka Essential Commodities (Public Distribution Control) Order, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the same is required to be published on the notice board of the Tahsildar of the Taluk, Office of the Taluk panchayat Samithi etc and time has to be counted from the date of publication of the notice on the notice board of such offices and according to him, application filed by the 1st petitioner on 5. 10. 2002 was well in time and therefore rejection of his application as bad in law. 10. 2002 was well in time and therefore rejection of his application as bad in law. He further contends that notification as per Annexure-A was not notified on the notice board of devaramallur Village Panchayat and due to non-publication of the notification on the notice board of Devaramallur "village Panchayat, residents of Bommanahalli village were prevented from participating in the proceedings. On these two grounds, he requests this Court to set aside the order of authorization granted in favour of R-5. ( 4 ) I have secured the records. According to the learned Govt. Advocate as well as the Counsel for R-5, application filed by the 1st petitioner was not in time. It is their case that notification as per Annexure-A was notified on the notice board of the Village Panchayats. It is also their case that petitioners being the residents of Pindipapanahalli village cannot contend that due to non-publication on the notice board of Devaramallur village, residents of Bommanahalli were prevented from participating in the proceedings. ( 5 ) AFTER hearing the counsel for the parties, what is required to be considered by this Court in this writ Petition is whether the notification dated 28. 8. 2002 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, kolar is in accordance with Clause 4 of the Order. If so, whether the application filed by 1st petitioner was barred by time? ( 6 ) CLAUSE 4 (1) of the Order reads as hereunder; "4. Application for Authorisation - (1) The authorised authority call for application by publication of a notice after giving a minimum of thirty days time and publishing the name on the notice board of his office and at the office of the Mandal Panchayat concerned. Town municipal Council, Municipal Corporation, Range Officers of the Food and Civil Supplies department concerned, as the case may be," from the above provision, it is clear that minimum 30 days time has to be given to the applicants to submit their application from the date of publishing the notification on the notice board of the Deputy Commissioner, Tahsildar of the Taluk, Office of the Taluk Panchayat and office of the Mandal Panchayat concerned. The records disclose issuance of such notification in the office of the Deputy Commissioner, concerned Taluk Panchayat and so also Village panchayat. The records disclose issuance of such notification in the office of the Deputy Commissioner, concerned Taluk Panchayat and so also Village panchayat. Therefore, it has to be held that there is no flaw in the notification issued by the deputy Commissioner as the same is in conformity with Sub-clause (1) of Clause 4 of the Order. It is not in dispute that the application was filed by the 1st petitioner for granting authorization on 5. 10. 2002. Whether such application was well in time or not is to be considered by this Court. From looking into Annexure-A, it is clear to me that notification was published on the notice board of the Deputy Commissioner, Kolar on 28. 8. 2002. If the time is calculated from the date of publication of the notification on the notice board of the Deputy Commissioner, Kolar, this Court has to hold that the application submitted by the petitioner on 5. 10. 2002 as barred by limitation. But considering Sub-clause (1) of Clause 4, this Court has to see whether notification on kothanur Gram Panchayat, Taluk Panchayat of Sidlaghatta and Town Municipal Council of sidlaghatta were also published simultaneously on 28. 8. 2002. From the records it is clear to me that notification as per Annexure-A was received by Kothanur Gram Panchayat on 11. 9. 2002 and similarly executive officer of Taluk Panchayat has also received on 11. 9. 2002. If they have received the notification on 11. 9. 2002, they would not have published the notification prior to 11. 9. 2002. Publication of the notification on the notice board of the Village Panchayat of kothanur and the Taluk Panchayat, Sidlaghatta shall be subsequent to 11. 9. 2002 only. Even if it is considered that those two offices had published notification on 11. 9. 2002, application filed by the petitioner on 5. 10. 2002 by the 1st petitioner is held to be well in time. So, it is clear that 30 days has to be counted from the date of publication of the notification on the notice board of the taluk Panchayat, village panchayat, office of the Deputy Commissioner and other offices as mentioned in Sub-clause (1) of Clause 4 of the Order. Since the application filed by the 1st petitioner was in time, order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Kolar is required to be set aside. Since the application filed by the 1st petitioner was in time, order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Kolar is required to be set aside. ( 7 ) IN the result, this petition is allowed. Authorization granted in favour of R-5 by the Deputy commissioner, Kolar is hereby set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Deputy commissioner, Kolar for fresh consideration to consider the applications of the 1st petitioner and r-5 alone on merits for grant of authorization to run a fair price depot at Pindipapanahalli village within one month from today.