ORDER Petitioners in these petitions have sought for quashing the order Annexure-A, dated 23rd November, 2008 issued by the third respondent insofar as it pertains to S1. Nos. 2, 40, 41 (petitioner 1); 9, 10, 11 (petitioner 2); 8 (petitioner 3); 33, 34 (petitioner 4); 16, 17, 18, 19 (petitioner 5); 24, 25, 26 (petitioner 6) and 35 (petitioner 7). 2. All these petitioners claim that, they are all authorised holders for distribution of fair price commodities as provided under the Karnataka Essential Commodities (Public Distribution System) Control Order, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Control Order, 1992'1. As per the terms and conditions of the authorisation given for distribution of the essential commodities, the petitioners herein have been distributing the foodgrains to the respective card holders coming within their respective jurisdiction and since the date of authorisation, they have been functioning sincerely, honestly and effectively and at no point of time, they have given room for any sort of complaints nor misused the distribution of the essential commodities to the card holders. When things stood thus, at the instigation or ill-will towards these petitioners, some people have moved the matter through the second respondent calling for further fresh authorisation to be given to the eligible applicants for distribution of essential commodities to the card holders in the respective villages in order to avoid inconvenience and distance. Accordingly, the Competent Authority thought it fit to issue the impugned notification calling for applications from the eligible applicants who are willing to accept the authorisation for distribution of essential commodities subject to terms and conditions and the guidelines specifically with reference to the relevant provisions of the Control Order, 1992, without issuing notice to these petitioners and without affording opportunity to them. Therefore, all these petitioners are constrained to redress their grievance by presenting these petitions, seeking appropriate reliefs as stated supra. 3. I have heard learned Counsel appearing for petitioners and learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents. 4. Therefore, all these petitioners are constrained to redress their grievance by presenting these petitions, seeking appropriate reliefs as stated supra. 3. I have heard learned Counsel appearing for petitioners and learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents. 4. The principal submission canvassed by the learned Counsel for petitioners, Sri Devi Prasad Shetty is that, the impugned notification issued is without notice to the petitioners and without affording opportunity to them and therefore, the impugned notification which is issued in violation of the principles of natural justice is liable to be set aside since the same would curtail the number of cards for distribution of essential commodities to their card holders in different villages coming within their respective jurisdiction, as referred above. It is the case of petitioners that, the Competent Authority has no power to do so and the impugned notification is issued only to accommodate some interested persons, contrary to the relevant provisions of the Control Order, 1992. If in pursuance of the notification, fresh authorisations are issued and the number of cards allotted' to these petitioners are curtailed, then, these petitioners would not be in a position to meet their day-to-day expenses and would be a great blow to their livelihood. Further, he submitted that, since several villages come within the jurisdiction of these petitioners for distribution of foodgrains, they have employed the unemployed persons and they are doing work in their respective co-operative marketing area and respective Vyavasaya Seva Sahakara Sangha and this aspect of the matter has not been looked into nor considered by the third respondent while issuing the impugned notification on the basis of the report submitted by the Tahsildar. Therefore, the impugned notification cannot be sustained and is therefore, liable to be set aside. 5. Per contra, learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents, inter alia, contended and substantiated that, the impugned notification issued is strictly in consonance with the relevant provisions of the Control Order, 1992 and no error or illegality as such is committed in issuing the impugned notification. To substantiate the said submission, he has taken me through paragraph 5 of the statement of objections wherein it is stated that, as per Clause 11(2) of the Control Order, 1992, the authorised holders are entitled for minimum of 300 cards. To substantiate the said submission, he has taken me through paragraph 5 of the statement of objections wherein it is stated that, as per Clause 11(2) of the Control Order, 1992, the authorised holders are entitled for minimum of 300 cards. Since these petitioners are holding more number of cards than the prescribed limit as per the aforesaid clause of the Control Order, 1992, the Competent Authority thought it fit to distribute the foodgrains to the card holders without causing inconvenience specifically keeping in mind the fact that, major card holders are old villagers, agriculturists, coolies, etc. Therefore, the Competent Authority, in the light of the relevant clause of the Control Order, 1992, has issued the impugned notification without affecting the minimum number of cards, i.e., 300 cards entitled to be held by these petitioners as per the relevant clause. If any authorised dealer is possessing beyond the limit of 300 cards, then, the Competent Authority has every right to issue the notification calling for eligible applicants for distribution of essential commodities and the said authority has rightly done so, after obtaining the detailed report from the jurisdictional Tahsildar and issued the impugned notification. Therefore, there is no error or illegality as such committed nor petitioners have made out any grounds to interfere in the notification issued by third respondent. 6. After hearing the learned Counsel appearing for petitioners and learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents and after careful perusal of the grounds urged by petitioners coupled with the stand taken by respondents in their objections statement, the only question that arise for consideration in these petitions is as to: Whether the impugned notification calling for applications from the eligible candidates for issuing new authorisation for distribution of foodgrains is sustainable under the relevant provisions of the Control Order, 1992? After careful perusal of Clause 11(2) of the Control Order, it reveals that, the authorised dealers/holders are entitled to hold minimum of 300 cards. In some exceptional cases, the number of cards can even be reduced to 200 cards as provided under proviso to Control Order, 1992. In the instant case, it is not the case of petitioners that, in view of the impugned notification, the number of cards held by them is going to be reduced or curtailed from the prescribed limit of 300 cards. In the instant case, it is not the case of petitioners that, in view of the impugned notification, the number of cards held by them is going to be reduced or curtailed from the prescribed limit of 300 cards. If it is not reduced then, they should not have any grievance before this Court against the issuance of the impugned notification by the third respondent. The fact that the number of cards held by these petitioners is not going to be reduced is categorically pointed out by respondents at paragraph 5 of their statement of objections. Therefore, interference by this Court, in the impugned notification is not justifiable nor the petitioners can claim as a matter of right. The petitioners are entitled to distribute foodgrains in respect of card holders coming within their jurisdiction and the impugned notification in no way affects their interest. 7. Further, it is significant to note that, the Government in its wisdom has thought it fit to introduce the Karnataka Essential Commodities (Public Distribution System) Control Order, 1992 and the main aim and object of the same is to see that, the essential commodities such as the food grains and kerosene oil are distributed to the card holders speedily and inexpensively without causing much inconvenience to the poorest of poor people and particularly in rural areas to give employment to the villagers to earn their livelihood at least to maintain their day-to-day expenses. Therefore, keeping in view all these relevant factors, the Competent Authority has in accordance with the provisions of the Control Order, 1992 and after obtaining the report from the jurisdictional Tahsildar has issued the impugned communication without affecting the minimum entitlement of card by these petitioners. Therefore, petitioners cannot have any grievance for issuing the impugned notification nor they have any right to question the notification. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, as referred above, I am of the considered view that interference by this Court is uncalled for nor I find any good grounds as such made out by petitioners to entertain the relief sought for in the instant case. Therefore, these writ petitions are liable to be dismissed as devoid of merits. Accordingly, they are dismissed.