JUDGMENT 1. - This petition has been filed challenging the allotment of half part Fair Price Shop in village Bhadoti Tehsil Malarna Dunger, District Sawai Madhopur to the respondent no. 4 one Devi lal Gurjar and the allotment of the shop in question to the petitioners-tenants. 2. From the facts on record, it is apparent that vide the Advertisement dated 27th May, 2011 under the hand of District Supply Officer, Sawai Madhopur, applications were invited for consideration of allotment of 96 Fair Price Shops ('FPS' in short) in District Sawai Madhopur. Conditions for eligibility were set out in the advertisement. The authorisation for FPS was to be issued under Clause-3 of the Rajasthan Food Grains and Other Essential Articles (Regulation and Distribution) Order, 1976 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Order of 1976'). Pursuant to advertisement the petitioner Cooperative Society is stated to have applied for consideration of half part FPS, at village Bhadoti which under the advertisement was specifically reserved for and alloted to a OBC candidates. 3. The State Government with a view to keep transparency and fair play in the matter of selection between competing applicants for the grant of FPS under Clause 3 of Order 1976 has issued guidelines on or about 27th May, 2011 wherein the procedure for allotment of FPS has been set out. The procedure entails an interview of the applicants and further provides that selection shall be made on the unanimous recommendations of the Advisory Committee constituted for the purpose. Recommendations as made by the Advisory Committee are to be forwarded to the State Government in the department of Food and Civil Supplies and allotment made thereon. 4. I have heard Mr. Deendayal Khandelwal counsel for the petitioner and Mr. K. Verma Addl. Government Counsel as also Mr. R.R. Baisala appearing for the respondent no. 4. 5. It is not in dispute that half part FPS at village Bhadoti Tehsil Malarna Dunger, District Sawai Madhopur under the advertisement dated 27th May, 2011 was set apart as reserved for OBC category. The petitioner Samiti on the face of it cannot claim itself to fall in the OBC category. Thus, ex-facie the petitioner Samiti was not entitled for allotment of the said FPS. The petitioner Samiti on the face of it cannot claim itself to fall in the OBC category. Thus, ex-facie the petitioner Samiti was not entitled for allotment of the said FPS. Apart from the aforesaid, it is evident from the reply of the State that the Advisory Committee constituted of six persons for the purpose of selecting the most suitable and desirable candidate unanimously recommended that the FPS in question will be allotted to respondent no. 4 Devi lal Gurjar, who belongs to the OBC category. No arbitrariness has been plausibly attributed to the recommendations of the Advisory Committee. 6. I am therefore, of the view that no illegality or arbitrariness in the allotment of half part FPS in favour of the respondent no. 4 Devi lal Gurjar can be found. I find no force in the writ petition. The writ petition stands dismissed.Writ Petition Dismissed. *******