JUDGMENT Deepak Gupta, J. These three appeal are being disposed of by a common judgment since similar issues are involved in all the three appeals. 2. To appreciate the rival contentions of the parties, it would be necessary to give the background of the policies framed by the State of Himachal Pradesh from time to time regarding the grant of permission to run fair price shops. 3. The Government of Himachal Pradesh took a decision on th January, 1985 that fair price shops under the Public Distribution System would be given to Cooperative Societies and if no Cooperative Societies were available, then to the H.P. State Civil Supplies Corporation could open retail outlets for distribution of essential commodities. This decision was modified on 25th April, 1985 and the State decided that first preference would be given to Cooperative Societies and thereafter the cases Ex-servicemen, handicapped and unemployed educated persons would be considered and lastly the H.P. State Civil Supplies Corporation would be considered for allotment of fair price shops. 4. CWP No. 1037 of 2003 was decided by a learned Single Judge of this Court on 30.04.2007 and the following directions were given: “i) Respondents No. 1 to 4 should strictly implement Annexures P3 and P4 while allotting fair price shops. ii) he preferences mentioned in Annexures P3 and P4 are to be adhered to strictly to shun arbitrariness. iii) In any eventuality, the Cooperative Societies is not available for running the fair price shop, the H.P. State Civil Supplies Corporation should be permitted to open their retail outlet for the distribution of essential commodities under the public distribution system. iv) In case neither the Cooperative Societies nor H.P. State Civil Supplies Corporation is available or forthcoming, in that event persons including exservicemen, handicapped or unemployed educated youth are to be considered. v) Proper notice is to be published either in two vernacular newspapers or by any known mode of publication including the affixation of notice at the Panchayat Ghar, Municipal Council office and Nagar Panchayat office. In the advertisement, exact location of fair price shop is required to be mentioned. vi) On the basis of the advertisement/publication, the applications from the categories mentioned in Annexures P3 and P4 are to be called, scrutinized by due date as shown in the advertisement and the suitability of the candidates is to be adjudged by the Deputy Commissioner of the concerned District. vi) On the basis of the advertisement/publication, the applications from the categories mentioned in Annexures P3 and P4 are to be called, scrutinized by due date as shown in the advertisement and the suitability of the candidates is to be adjudged by the Deputy Commissioner of the concerned District. vii) The Deputy Commissioners in the State shall maintain the record of the selection for allotment of fair price shops. viii) The Deputy Commissioners may also evolve system of allotting marks to adjudge the suitability of the candidates and therein the preference is to be given to the most educated candidates available.” 5. An appeal against this judgment was filed being LPA No. 12 of 2007. In the said appeal, a Division Bench of this Court, of which one of us (Deepak Gupta, J.) was a member, while upholding the judgment of the learned Single Judge in CWP No. 1037 of 2003, modified the directions only to the extent that first preference would be given to Cooperative Societies for running fair price shops, second preference would be given to Exservicemen and unemployed educated youth or disabled persons and third preference was to be given to the H.P. State Civil Supplies Corporation. The other modification which the Division Bench has made was that instead of publication of notice in two vernacular newspapers, this Division Bench directed that the notices can be published by affixation of notices on the Panchayat Ghar, Municipal Committee's office and Nagar Panchayat Offices and in addition to above, the said notices may also be placed outside the Government Schools in the area as well as by way of Munadi in the area by beat of drum. 6. Consequent to the aforesaid judgment, the State of Himachal Pradesh framed a new policy on 5th August, 2008. The relevant portion of the policy reads as follows: “A Fair Price Shop is generally to be opened for a population of 2000 or above, and in remote and inaccessible areas, these norms can be relaxed up to a population of 1500. The norms should also be so that no consumer will have to travel a distance of more than three Kms. to the nearest PDS shop. In case of need for any relaxation beyond the above guidelines, the matter will be referred to the State Govt. for approval alongwith recommendations of the District Public Committee and the undersigned.” 7. The norms should also be so that no consumer will have to travel a distance of more than three Kms. to the nearest PDS shop. In case of need for any relaxation beyond the above guidelines, the matter will be referred to the State Govt. for approval alongwith recommendations of the District Public Committee and the undersigned.” 7. Before coming to the merits of each case, we may decide the issue first raised by the appellants that the learned Single Judge has not decided the issue of alternative remedy being available to the original writ petitioners and that since an alternative remedy was available, the original writ petitioners should have filed an appeal under the provisions of Section 17 of the Himachal Pradesh Specified Articles (Regulation of Distribution) Order, 2003, which reads as follows: “17. Appeals. (1) Any person aggrieved by an order, made by the Controller or specified authority may appeal within thirty days from the receipt of the orders to: (i) The Controller, where the order has been made by specified authority within his jurisdiction; (ii) The Director, where the order has been passed by Controller; (iii) The Secretary (Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs) the Government of Himachal Pradesh where the order has been passed by the Director: Provided that the appellate authority, for reasons to be reduced in writing, may entertain an appeal after expiry of 30 days, if he is satisfied that the appellant was prevented from filing the same within the stipulated period of 30 days for the reasons explained in the application which were beyond the control of the appellant. (2) Every appeal shall be filed in duplicate and shall be accompanied by an attested copy of the order appealed against. (3) Pending disposal of the appeal, the appellate authority may direct that the order against which the appeal is made shall not take effect until the appeal is disposed of.” 8. From the perusal of the judgment of the learned Single Judge, it does not appear that this issue was raised before the learned Single Judge. It has been asserted by Ms. Nishi Goel, Advocate, that she had, in fact, urged this issue and cited the judgment of this Court in CWP No. 2700 of 2009, titled Ranjeet Singh versus Union of India and others, decided on 23.7.2010 in support of her contention. 9. It has been asserted by Ms. Nishi Goel, Advocate, that she had, in fact, urged this issue and cited the judgment of this Court in CWP No. 2700 of 2009, titled Ranjeet Singh versus Union of India and others, decided on 23.7.2010 in support of her contention. 9. When a contention is not noticed in the judgment, then the appropriate remedy would have been to again approach the Single Judge. There is sanctity attached to judicial orders and if anybody wants to say that the Judge did not properly record what was urged, then the only appropriate remedy available to such persons is to approach the very Court which had passed the judgment and raise the issue. This has not been done. 10. Be that as it may, a perusal of Section 17 of the Himachal Pradesh Specified Articles (Regulation of Distribution) Order, 2003, quoted hereinabove, shows that where the order has been passed by the Controller, appeal lies to the Director and where the order has been passed by the Director, appeal lies to the Secretary (Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs). In these cases, the bone of contention is the order of relaxation which has been passed by the Secretary (Food and Civil Supplies) and no appeal is provided against such an order. Therefore, there was no efficacious alternative remedy available to the petitioners because the Controller had passed the order granting the fair price shops to the present appellants on the basis of the communication sent by the State Government. The relaxation has been given by the State Government and no appeal would lie against such order. 11. We are also of the view that in Letters Patent Appeal, this issue should not be permitted to be raised when the case has been decided on merits. The judgment of the Division Bench in CWP No. 2700 of 2009, titled Ranjeet Singh versus Union of India and others, relied upon by the appellants, has no applicability to the facts of the case because in that case, the petitioner had challenged the order of suspension without filing an appeal, whereas in the present case, effect of the order granting the fair price shops is to directly and adversely affect the business of the original writ petitioners and hence, they could have come to this Court directly. 12. 12. Coming to the individual facts of each case, we shall first take up LPA No. 508 of 2012 arising out of CWP No. 1512 of 2012B. The writ petitioner Pritam Singh was admittedly running a fair price shop in Village Bairghatta since the year 198283. The appellant Agriculture Cooperative Society, Bairghatta had applied for allotment of fair price shop at Village Bairghatta in November, 2008, which was rejected by the Public Distribution Committee (PDC) on 14.12.2010. Another application was again filed by this Society on 11.03.2011, which was recommended favourably by Gram Panchayat, Bairghatta. Thereafter, the PDC on 19.08.2011 decided to invite applications for setting up a fair price shop at Village Bairghatta and the case was sent to the State Government for relaxing the norms which provided that normally a fair price shop should be set up for 2000 persons, though by relaxation even if there were only 1500 persons attached to a fair price shop, a new shop could be opened. The other condition was that normally no person should have to travel more than three kilometers to purchase rations. 13. These conditions, in our view, are salutary. Firstly, they lay down an economically viable formula whereby a fair price shop should normally cater for up to 2000 persons. Once it is found that there are more than 2000 persons in the area in question, then the Government/PDC would be justified in opening another fair price shop even if it results in the original fair price shop owner losing some of his customers, because normally this would mean that he would still have at least 1000 customers, if not more. This relaxation also has to be granted in such cases where the topography of the area is such that people in remote villages do not have to travel great distances and as held by this Court, the villagers belonging to remote areas should not be made to travel long distances to take rations. 14. However, the fact of the matter is that in the present case the distance of the shop set up by the Society from the shop already existing is less than 50 meters and, therefore, this will not, in any manner, help any villagers who may live in remote areas. 14. However, the fact of the matter is that in the present case the distance of the shop set up by the Society from the shop already existing is less than 50 meters and, therefore, this will not, in any manner, help any villagers who may live in remote areas. At this stage, it would be pertinent to refer to the document relied upon by the appellant, which is the copy of the proceeding book of the PDC, dated 19.08.2011. If we make reference to resolution No. 8, it has been recorded that this case was earlier finalized on 14.12.2010 when the claim of the appellant Society was rejected. Thereafter, it was reopened and the Inspector (Civil Supplies) submitted a report. In this report, it was submitted that if the Society was given the shop, 312 ration cards for 1369 persons would be attached to the shop of the Cooperative Society at a distance of 50 meters from the fair price shop being run by the petitioner Pritam Singh. It is also evident that at that time, with the shop of petitioner Pritam Singh, 303 ration cards were attached which related to 1383 persons. 146 ration cards were attached with the fair price shop at Chulla and these related to 605 persons. Similarly, 821 ration chards relating to population of 3318 were attached with fair price shop at Dhar Chatotrian. It was also pointed out that in the fair price shop at Andrana, there were 320 ration cards for 1268 persons. It was reported that after opening of the fair price shop of the Society, only 151 ration cards for 693 persons would be left with Pritam Singh. As regards fair price shop at Chulla, as against 146 ration cards only 106 would remain and against the original population of 605 only 505 would remain. In the fair price shop at Dhar Chatotrian the same would be left with 270 ration cards with the population of 1042. As far as fair price shop at Andrana was concerned, it would left with 751 ration cards for 3005 persons. 15. We fail to understand the logic of the relaxation in this report because there is some mistake with regard to Dhar Chatotrian and Andrana. As far as fair price shop at Andrana was concerned, it would left with 751 ration cards for 3005 persons. 15. We fail to understand the logic of the relaxation in this report because there is some mistake with regard to Dhar Chatotrian and Andrana. Be that as it may, there is no reason why one fair price shop should be left with more than 3000 customers and the fair price shop which had only 1369 customers be adversely affected by reducing its customers to 693. They should virtually make the ration shop economically unviable and would have severe consequences on the rights of Pritam Singh. This could not have been done without giving him a hearing. 16. It has been urged that Pritam Singh did not object when the shop was advertised or when it was opened. We are not in agreement with this submission. The writ petition was filed within a month of the shop being opened after the petitioner's obtaining the necessary documents. 17. We are purposely avoiding going into the questions relating to mala fides, but it is apparent that everything is not so simple as is made out by the State or by the appellants. In all the cases, previous applications were rejected and then asked to be reopened. In all cases, relaxation was given without giving any reasons for relaxation. When the policy of the Government itself lays down that each fair price shop should cater to about 2000 people and relaxation shall be given up to 1500 people, specific reasons must be pointed out when the persons attached to a fair price shop are reduced to 693 and 505 as in the present case. Even if the State has the power to relax, it must exercise such powers in a judicious manner and must give reasons for granting relaxation. 18. When a fair price shop has more than 2000 customers, the State would be well justified in opening a new shop. It would mean that the shop would have at least 1000 customers. The shopkeeper may not be required to be heard in such a case. 18. When a fair price shop has more than 2000 customers, the State would be well justified in opening a new shop. It would mean that the shop would have at least 1000 customers. The shopkeeper may not be required to be heard in such a case. But where, as in the present case, Pritam Singh only had 1369 customers if by opening a new shop number of his customers was to be reduced to 693, which would definitely affect his business adversely, he should have been heard in the matter and no order could have been passed in his absence. The decision taken by the Government to open a new fair price shop is a decision taken in his absence and, therefore, the learned Single Judge was justified in setting aside the same. 19. This appeal arises out of CWP No. 1198 of 2012J. In this case, the writ petitioner was a Cooperative Society which was running a fair price shop at Tika Gujrehra. Appellant herein, Karam Chand, had earlier filed an application for allotment of a fair price shop at the same place on 22.08.2008, which was incomplete and not considered favourably. Thereafter, the President of the Youth Wing of a political party recommended the case of Karam Chand and the department was asked to again reopen the case. Karam Chand again submitted an application for allotment of fair price shop at Tika Gujrehra on 14.02.2010 and again the matter was reopened and taken up by the PDC on 09.05.2011 and again rejected. Surprisingly, the case was taken up on 09.08.11 and the PDC decided to open a fair price shop at Village Gujrehra again without considering what adverse impact it would have on the writ petitioner Society. 20. In this case, the norms were relaxed without recording any reasons whatsoever. The learned Single Judge found that the applications filed by the petitioner were incomplete and he had not given the information necessarily required. No reason was given why another fair price shop should be opened at Village Gujrehra and no reasons were given for relaxing the norms. Therefore, the learned Single Judge was justified in allowing the writ petition and quashing the allotment of fair price shop made in favour of the appellant. 21. The present appeal arises out of CWP No. 2257 of 2012F. Therefore, the learned Single Judge was justified in allowing the writ petition and quashing the allotment of fair price shop made in favour of the appellant. 21. The present appeal arises out of CWP No. 2257 of 2012F. In this case also the challenge was by the Matehar Cooperative Service Society petitioner to the allotment of a fair price shop to the appellant appellant-Brijender Singh. The petitioner Society was running a fair price shop for many years. Appellant Brijender Singh submitted an application for allotment of a fair price shop at Village Tharkehar on 13.05.2011 and his case was recommended by MLA on 27.07.2011. His application was incomplete. Despite this, the PDC in its meeting held on 19.08.2011 considered the case of the appellant Brijender Singh and came to the conclusion that since the criteria of distance, ration card and population is not being met, the case be recommended for relaxation and thereafter, by the same advertisement, the shop was advertised and granted to the appellant. 22. The learned Single Judge held and rightly so that the application was incomplete and material particulars were blank, but despite this a recommendation was made. Even in this case, no reasons were given for relaxation and, therefore, the learned Single Judge was justified in allowing the writ petition and quashing the allotment of the shop. 23. Another disturbing feature of all these cases is that in all the cases, it appears that the applications, which were rejected by the PDC, were reopened and recommended for relaxation by the PDC only because of political intervention. We find that in none of these cases was the shop advertised by beat of drum. This is not the manner in which public benefits have to be distributed. 24. In all these cases, serious charges have been levelled by the present appellants against the private respondents in regard to the manner they were running the fair price shops. It is alleged both by the appellants and by the State that the original writ petitioners were not running the shops properly. If such be the situation, there is nothing which prevents the State from issuing notice to the person(s) running such fair price shop(s) in an improper manner. It is alleged both by the appellants and by the State that the original writ petitioners were not running the shops properly. If such be the situation, there is nothing which prevents the State from issuing notice to the person(s) running such fair price shop(s) in an improper manner. In all such cases, an inquiry must be conducted and if it is found that the person running the fair price shop is guilty of breaching the rules or running the shop in a manner which causes harm to the public, then the State can cancel the permission granted to them. This, however, cannot be done without following the rules of natural justice. In the present cases, no notice was issued to any of the original writ petitioner and, therefore, neither the State nor the appellants can urge that the writ petitioners were not running the shops properly. 25. We, therefore, dismiss the appeals and issue the following directions: 1. That henceforth whenever any fair price shop is to be advertised, advertisement in this behalf shall be made in at least one vernacular daily newspaper having wide circulation in the area in question. 2. That the PDC must, before considering the applications, clearly state whether the norms are met or not. If the norms of population, i.e. 2000, or distance, i.e. 3 kilometers, are not met and a second shop is sought to be opened, then even before recommending the case for relaxation, the PDC must give specific reasons while recommending relaxation. 3. That in such cases, the State Government while granting relaxation must give reasons why it considers relaxation necessary. 4. That in all cases, where on account of relaxation, business of existing fair price shop holders is likely to be affected, such persons must be heard before the relaxation is granted. 26. All the three appeals are dismissed with the aforesaid directions.