ORDER : The petitioner in this writ application has prayed to quash the office order as contained in Memo no.72(F) dated 23.6.2016 whereby the territories of “urban area” allotted to the petitioner has been curtailed. 2. The petitioner was appointed in the post of Medical Officer on 14.3.1998. The petitioner participated in the Orientation Programme for Designated Officers organized by Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) and became eligible to work as Food Safety Officer. Vide letter dated 10.3.2015, each district in the State of Jharkhand was divided into several blocks for the purpose of online food license and registration system. Codes were allotted to each block/sector for the purpose of the same. The petitioner was allotted Jamshedpur Urban Block having Code No.060. By virtue of the order dated 28.4.2016, the petitioner was given the additional charge of Food Safety Officer of East Singhbhum (Jamshedpur) “urban area”. The respondent no.4, namely, Dr. Maheshwar Prasad was allotted the additional charge of Food Safety Officer of Jamshedpur Sadar Area. 3. It is pertinent to mention here that Jamshedpur Sadar Area and Jamshedpur Urban Area are two distinct sub-divisions within the district of Jamshedpur for the purpose of exercising jurisdiction by the Food Safety Officer-cum-Registering Authority. By virtue of the order dated 23.6.2016, the territorial jurisdiction of both, the petitioner and the respondent no.4, has been reorganized. By virtue of the said reorganization, Jugsalai Municipal Area fell within the territorial jurisdiction of the petitioner whereas Mango Notified Area and Jamshedpur Notified Area fell within the territorial jurisdiction of respondent no.4.The petitioner is aggrieved by the said reorganization. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that since the petitioner has to exercise his jurisdiction over Jamshedpur Urban Area, he should have given the powers to exercise his jurisdiction over Mango Notified Area and Jamshedpur Notified Area also. He submits that since both these areas fall within the Jamshedpur Urban Area, the impugned order could not have been issued reorganizing these two notified areas under the jurisdiction of respondent no.4.It has been further submitted that because of reorganization, there will be administrative difficulty. Learned counsel lastly submits that this reorganization is absolutely bad and is illegal and thus, the same is liable to be set aside. 5. Learned counsel lastly submits that this reorganization is absolutely bad and is illegal and thus, the same is liable to be set aside. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that there is no illegality in the impugned office order and the petitioner cannot be said to be aggrieved in any manner by the impugned order. It has been further submitted that only for the purpose of smooth administration, Jugsalai Municipal Area, Mango Notified Area and Jamshedpur Notified Area has been allotted to the petitioner and the respondent no.4, as per the order dated 23.6.2016. He further submits that there is no malice in issuing the impugned order and the petitioner has got no locus standi to challenge the same. Thus, this writ application is liable to be dismissed. 6. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and I have gone through the impugned order. The impugned order only divides the jurisdiction amongst the petitioner and the respondent no.4. By virtue of the impugned order, the petitioner has to exercise his jurisdiction over the area covered under Jugsalai Municipality and the respondent no.4 will exercise his jurisdiction over the area covered under Mango Notified Area and Jamshepdur Notified Area. It is absolutely within the domain of the State to allot a particular area to a particular person for exercising the power under the Food Safety Act as Food Safety Officer. A particular officer cannot as a matter of right claim any territory for the purpose of exercising the jurisdiction. 7. It is not the case of the petitioner that the impugned order has been passed without any authority. Further the petitioner cannot dictate as to which area should be allotted to him for the purpose of exercising jurisdiction as Food Safety Officer. Moreover, the petitioner has failed to substantiate as to how he is aggrieved by the impugned order. 8. Thus, I find that the petitioner has miserably failed to substantiate his case for interference with the order dated 23.6.2016. I find no merit in this writ application and hence, the same is dismissed.