Judgment :- In these three Writ Petitions, the challenge is to the action of the District Collector in ordering transfer of Public Distribution System to some other society. 2. In W.P.No.6937 of 2009, the petitioner is a Sales Assistant in Kelamangalam Agricultural Producers Cooperative Marketing Society. The petitioner was informed by an order dated 33. 2009 that he was relieved from the service of the Society on the ground that the petitioner should report to another Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society, wherein the business of running fair price shops was culled out. Apart from the fact that such a Writ Petition is not maintainable, Mr.P.Mohanraj, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that by virtue of this order, the petitioner will have to lose employment and therefore he is attacking the policy of the transfer of fair price shop to some other society as unjustified. 3. In W.P.No.7142 of 2009, the case is filed by Trade Union representing the employees of the Cooperative Wholesale Stores challenging the action of the District Collector in transferring the Public Distribution System to another public service cooperative stores. 4. In W.P.No.19272 of 2009, it is the very same petitioner, who challenged the order dated 9. 2009 issued by the Joint Director of Cooperative Societies, Thiruvarur Region. By the said order, the work done by the earlier societies with reference to the public distribution system was handed over to a new society. Mr.S.Kasirajan, learned counsel for the petitioner referred to Section 13 of the Cooperative Societies Act. It is stated that the procedures contemplated therein have not been followed in doing the transfer. Secondly, he submitted that the members of the Union are likely to lose the employment, in view of the transfer of their business of public distribution system to some other society. He also submitted that the new society is not having enough wherewithal to conduct such business. 5. Mr.M.S.Palaniswamy, learned counsel for the impleaded societies submitted that the petitioners have not challenged the basic order dated 29. 2009, in which the decision was taken to transfer on the basis of administrative grounds to various societies. Apart from the fact, he also submitted that it is not open either to the employees of the society or to the trade union to challenge such action. It is beyond the purview of any judicial review. 6. 2009, in which the decision was taken to transfer on the basis of administrative grounds to various societies. Apart from the fact, he also submitted that it is not open either to the employees of the society or to the trade union to challenge such action. It is beyond the purview of any judicial review. 6. In this context, Ms.M.S.Palanisamy, learned counsel for the impleaded societies referred to the judgment of this Court in the V.L.Spl.200 Arakonam Agricultural Cooperative Bank rep.by its Secretary K.Rajendran vs. the Registrar of Cooperative Societies and others reported in 1999 W.L.R.471. In that case, this Court had held that a Cooperative Society being a dealer cannot dictate to the Government or to the Rationing authorities that the number of Cardholders should not be reduced at any point of time. Thereafter, in paragraph 8, it has been observed as follows: "Merely because an entrustment was made to another Society, taking into consideration the financial difficulties of a particular Society, the Authorities are not barred from returning back the dealership to the earlier dealer when his financial position has improved. Why the authorities insist on financial position is, that the consumer public should not suffer, and it is not preference of another dealer in ones place." By saying so, the petition filed by the Cooperative Society was rejected. 7. Mr.M.S.Palaniswamy, learned counsel also brought to the notice of this Court an unreported judgment in the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Marketing Societies Employees Association (Virudhachalam Unit) rep.by its Secretary vs. the District Collector and others in W.P.No.35605 of 2002 dated 211. 2002. In that case, K.P.Sivasubramaniam,J held that in such matters, the workers have no locus standi to question such orders and it was for the Society or any of its members of the Society to take up the issue. 8. In respect of the very same Cooperative Society, a case was filed before this Court in W.P.No.14360 of 2000 in T.G.Saravanan vs. the Registrar of Cooperative Societies and others dated 111. 2007. In that case, this Court in paragraph 6 held as follows: "6. No cause of action has arisen for the petitioner to challenge the same in the present case. Even before any effective steps could be taken by the respondents, the petitioner has rushed to this Court and got a stay order even for the proposal made by the third respondent. No cause of action has arisen for the petitioner to challenge the same in the present case. Even before any effective steps could be taken by the respondents, the petitioner has rushed to this Court and got a stay order even for the proposal made by the third respondent. However, the learned counsel was fair enough to cite the judgment of this Court in ARAKONAM PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL COOPERATIVE BANK VS. THE REGISTRART OF COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES & OTHERS reported in 1999 WRIT L.R.471, where the question was whether the fair price shops running under the Cooperative Societies dealing with the essential commodities, can be transferred. In this context, this court has held that the society has no vested right over the essential commodities. In any event, this court finds that there are no merits in the Writ Petition." 9. The public distribution system, which is also running fair price shops is not directly coming under the business of the Cooperative Society. On the contrary, it is an additional work furnished to the societies not under the provisions of the Cooperative Societies Act but by the orders of the District Collector functioning under the Essential Commodities Act. Therefore, if part of the business which was given as additional business to the society is transferred, the employees cannot challenge on the ground that it is likely to result in their retrenchment. Therefore, the decision taken by the authorities outside the Cooperative Society could not also be interfered with at the instance of the petitioners. 10. Even in cases where the employer himself decides either to disown or disengage such a business and whether the employees would have got locus standi to question such decision came to be considered by the Supreme Court in M/s.Parry and Co.Ltd. Vs P.C.Pal, Judge of the Second Industrial Tribunal, Calcutta and others reported in AIR 1970 SC 1334 . The Supreme Court held that it is the managerial discretion of an employer to organise and arrange his business in the manner he considers best. So long as that was done bona fide, it was not competent for the Tribunal to question its propriety. If such a scheme of reorgnaisation results in surplus stage of employees, the employer is not expected to carry the burden of such economic liability. Therefore, the locus standi of the employees to question such managerial decision of the employer itself cannot be questioned. 11. If such a scheme of reorgnaisation results in surplus stage of employees, the employer is not expected to carry the burden of such economic liability. Therefore, the locus standi of the employees to question such managerial decision of the employer itself cannot be questioned. 11. In the present case, it was not even the decision of the respective Cooperative Society. But, on the contrary, the decision was taken outside and over which business, the society itself has no say as held by this Court in the earlier decision referred to above. 12. In the light of the above, all the three Writ Petitions stand dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. The connected Miscellaneous Petitions stand closed.