Judgment ( 1. ) HEARD. Petitioner has assailed the legality of an order (P-1), dated 15-2-2006 passed by the Addl. Commissioner, Jabalpur Division, Jabalpur allowing the appeal which was filed against the appellate order passed by the Collector on 8-11-2005 in Case No. 33-B-121/2005-06 under the provision of M. P. (Food Stuffs) Public Distribution Scheme, 1991. ( 2. ) AN order dated 25-6-2005 was passed by the District Food Controller, Jabalpur in Case No. 16/2005 by which the allotment of the shop was cancelled. An appeal was preferred under Clause 14 of the aforesaid Scheme of 1991. Collector dismissed the appeal as per order (P-2) dated 8-11-2005, an appeal was preferred as against the order passed by the Collector before the Addl. Commissioner, Jabalpur Division, Jabalpur, which has been allowed as per order dated 15-2-2006. ( 3. ) SHORT and singular ground which has been raised by Shri Shashank Shekhar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is that only the Collector was having the appellate jurisdiction. Additional Commissioner has not been conferred the power of hearing an appeal as against the appellate order passed by the Collector. He has placed reliance on Clause 14 of the Scheme, 1991 and the notification dated 28-10-1992 issued by the State Government empowering the Collector to hear an appeal under Clause 14 of the Scheme of 1991. Thus, he has submitted that no further appeal was maintainable before the Addl. Commissioner, Jabalpur Division, Jabalpur. ( 4. ) SHRI G. P. Singh, Dy. Govt. Advocate and Shri S. K. Garg, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents have submitted that the petitioner society has been given the shop after interim stay which was granted by the. Addl. Commissioner on 26-11-2005. Thus, the petitioner has no right to come in this writ petition he has further submitted that as the Collector has entered into an agreement on behalf of the State Government, as such, even as against the appellate order which was passed by the Collector, an appeal was maintainable before the Additional Commissioner, Jabalpur Division, Jabalpur. In the facts and circumstances of the case, no case of interference is made out in this writ petition. ( 5. ) SHRI G. P. Singh, Dy. Govt. Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 to 6 has submitted that the dispute in petition is inter se petitioner and the respondent No. 7. In the facts and circumstances of the case, no case of interference is made out in this writ petition. ( 5. ) SHRI G. P. Singh, Dy. Govt. Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 to 6 has submitted that the dispute in petition is inter se petitioner and the respondent No. 7. ( 6. ) AFTER hearing learned Counsel for the parties, in the opinion of this Court considering the Clause 16 of the Scheme of 1991 and the notification dated 28-10-1992, it is crystal clear that an appeal lies as. against any action of the Food Controller at the Sub-Division level to an Appellate Authority to be prescribed by the State Government. The State Government has prescribed the Appellate Authority as per the notification dated 28-10-1992 to be the Collector. Clause 14 of the Scheme of 1991 is quoted below: vihy bl Ldhe ds vurxzr nqdku vkoavu gsrq fu;r vf/kdkjhvfkkzr- ftyk eq[;ky; ij [kk| fu;a=d@ [kk| vf/kdkjh ,oavuqfohkkx Lrj ij vuqfohkkxh; vf/kdkjh }kjk dh xbz fdlhhkh dk;zokgh ls O;ffkr dksbz O;fdr ljdkj }kjk izkf/kdrvf/kdkjh dks vihy dj ldsxka The State Government has prescribed Appellate Authority as per notification dated 28-10-1992, thus: vf/klwpuk Hkksiky] fnukad 28 Dzekadand,qe-iz [kk| inkfkz lkoztfud ukxfjd iwfrz forj. kldhe] 1991 ds [kam 14 }kjk iznk kf;ksa dks iz;ksx esaykrs gq,] jkt; ljdkj ,rn}kjk] jkt; ds lelr dysdvjksadks mudh viuhandviuh vf/kdkfjrk ds Hkhrj] m [kam dsiz;kstuksa ds fy, izkf/kdr djrh gsa From a bare reading of the aforesaid Clause 14 and notification that appeal lies to Collector, it is clear that no further appeal lies before the Additional Commissioner. He was not competent to hear the appeal. Consequently the order (P-1) cannot be allowed to stand. ( 7. ) THE submission raised by Shri S. K. Garg, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 7 that an agreement was entered into by the Collector on behalf of the State Government. Even if an agreement has been entered into by the Collector on behalf of the State Government or by any other person on behalf of the State Government, the appealability of the order has to be determined as per Clause 14 of the Scheme of 1991 and the notification dated 28-10-1992. Even if an agreement has been entered into by the Collector on behalf of the State Government or by any other person on behalf of the State Government, the appealability of the order has to be determined as per Clause 14 of the Scheme of 1991 and the notification dated 28-10-1992. In view of the aforesaid Clause 14 of the Scheme of 1991 and the notification dated 28-10-1992, 1 find no case for interference was made out at the level of Additional Commissioner. Order is without jurisdiction. Thus, order (P-1) cannot be allowed to stand, the Addl. Commissioner was not empowered to hear the appeal against the appellate order. Consequently, writ petition is allowed. ( 8. ) SHRI S. K. Garg, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 6 has prayed for liberty to assail the order (P-2) in appropriate petition. That liberty is available to the respondent No. 7. No order as to costs. C. C. as per rules.