ORDER The petitioners, questioning the legality and validity of the order dated 13th September, 2004 in proceedings No. CFS.APPEAL.80/2004-05 on the file of the Commissioner and Director of Food and Civil Supplies, Bangalore vide Annexure-B and also the order dated 27th February, 2004 in proceedings No. DRA/111/CR/19/2003-04 on the file of the Deputy Commissioner (Food), Kolar District, Kolar vide Annexure-A, has presented the instant writ petition. 2. The first petitioner claims to be the Co-operative Society, represented by its representative, registered under the 1 [Societies Registration Act], second petitioner is a member of the said society belonging to general category and third petitioner is also a member belonging to scheduled caste category. The grievance of these petitioners in the instant writ petition is that, the first respondent herein without following the procedure prescribed under the Karnataka Essential Commodities (Public Distribution System) Control Order, 1992 ('Control Order, 1992 for brevity), has proceeded to consider the request of third respondent alone and has passed the order, issuing authorisation to third respondent, contrary to the mandatory provision of Clause 4 of 'Control Order, 1992' for distribution of essential commodities to card holders of Channarayanapalli Village, Gulur Taluk. The first respondent has passed the impugned order dated 27th February, 2004, granting authorisation to third respondent. Assailing the correctness of the said order passed by first respondent, petitioners herein have filed an appeal on the file of second respondent. The appeal filed by petitioners was dismissed as not maintainable on the ground that, the appellants (petitioners herein) are not the aggrieved party. Assailing the correctness of the impugned order passed by both the authorities, as referred to above, petitioners herein felt necessitated to present the instant writ petition. 3. The bone of contention raised by learned Counsel for petitioners in the instant writ petition is that, before considering the application filed by third respondent, the first respondent ought to have given sufficient publication of the notification and therefore, the said authority has committed a grave error in not following the procedure as envisaged under Clause 4 of the 'Control Order, 1992'. To substantiate the said contention, she placed heavy reliance on non-publication of the notice in the Grama Panchayat of the Nallappareddipalli Village. To substantiate the said contention, she placed heavy reliance on non-publication of the notice in the Grama Panchayat of the Nallappareddipalli Village. Therefore, she submitted that, if the notification had been notified and published in the said Nallappareddipalli Grama Panchayat, petitioners also would have been eligible to file necessary application seeking authorisation for distribution of essential commodities to the card holders of the said village. She further submitted that, this fact has been specifically pointed out before the Appellate Authority and the Appellate Authority, instead of considering the matter on merits has proceeded to pass the order, dismissing the appeal filed by petitioners herein solely on the ground that, the appeal filed by petitioners is not maintainable on the ground that, the "Authorised Authority" refusing to issue or renew an authorisation or cancelling or suspending an authorisation or forfeiting the security deposited by the authorised holder, can only prefer the appeal. She submitted that, the said reasoning given by the Appellate Authority is contrary to Clause 18 of the said 'Control Order, 1992'. Therefore, she submitted that, the impugned orders passed by both the authorities are liable to be set aside and the matter requires reconsideration. 4. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate, inter alia, contended and substantiated that, the impugned orders passed by both the authorities are in strict compliance of the mandatory provisions of the Control Order, 1992 and no error or irregularity as such has been committed by both the authorities. Further, to substantiate his submission, he has produced the original records and pointed out that, as per the requirement of Clause 4 of the 'Control Order, 1992', the publication of the notice has been carried out in the Office of Tahsildar, Office of Taluk Panchayat, Block Panchayat Office, T.A.P.C.M.S. and Range Office of Food and Civil Supplies. After publication of the same, only one application was received, and that is from third respondent and the same was considered and authorisation has been issued to the said applicant-third respondent herein. Therefore, he submitted that, no error or irregularity as such has been committed by the authority nor petitioners have made out any good grounds to interfere in the impugned orders passed by both the authorities. Therefore, he submitted that, the writ petition filed by petitioners is liable to be dismissed as misconceived. Therefore, he submitted that, no error or irregularity as such has been committed by the authority nor petitioners have made out any good grounds to interfere in the impugned orders passed by both the authorities. Therefore, he submitted that, the writ petition filed by petitioners is liable to be dismissed as misconceived. 5, I have heard learned Counsel appearing for petitioners and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents. After careful perusal of the material available on record, including the original records made available by learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents, it is manifest on the face of the orders passed by both the authorities, viz., respondents 1 and 2 that, both the authorities have not committed any error much less material irregularity in passing the impugned orders. Both the authorities have proceeded and passed the impugned orders in strict compliance of Clause 4 of the 'Control Order, 1992'. It is, significant to note from the original records made available by learned Counsel for respondents that, publication has been carried out by first respondent on 14th January, 2004 bearing No. CR.12/2003-04, which is at internal page 26 and the publication has been carried out and published in the Office of the Tahsildar, Bagepalli Taluk Panchayat, Bagepalli, Block Panchayat Office, Bagepalli, the Range Office of Food and Civil Supplies and T.A.P.C.M.S. Further it emerges from the original records at internal page 26 that, all the concerned officials have put their respective signatures along with seal and the same is initiated by the concerned Authorised Officers and some of the Authorised Officers have put their signature in green ink on 20th January, 2004, which is present towards the left side of the said page. Therefore, the bone of contention urged by learned Counsel for petitioners has no legs to stand. Hence, the same is liable to be rejected on this ground alone. Further, after perusal of Clause 4 of 'Control Order, 1992', it is seen that, the said requirement has been fully complied with by first respondent and the said authority has rightly given the authorisation to third respondent's for distribution of essential commodities to the card holders of Channarayanapalli Village. Hence, I do not find any error or illegality as such committed by first respondent herein. 6. Hence, I do not find any error or illegality as such committed by first respondent herein. 6. So far as the order passed by Appellate Authority-second respondent herein is concerned, the Appellate Authority has given cogent reasons for dismissing the appeal filed by petitioners herein stating that, petitioners have filed the appeal under Clause 17 of the 'Control Order, 1992', under which, only a person who is aggrieved by an order of the Authorised Authority refusing to issue or renew an authorisation or cancelling or suspending an authorisation or forfeiting the security deposited by the authorised dealer can prefer an appeal. The said reasoning and finding recorded by the Appellate Authority is in consonance with Clause 17 of the 'Control Order, 1992' and the said authority has rightly dismissed the appeal filed by petitioners. Therefore, I do not find any arbitrariness or illegality as such committed by the Appellate Authority in dismissing the appeal filed by petitioners. 7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition filed by petitioners is dismissed as devoid of merits.