JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated at the Bar that he is under instructions not to file the rejoinder. Right to file the same is closed. 2. The petitioner, by the medium of this writ petition, has sought a writ of certiorari for quashing the certificate of registration of respondent No.4 and a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents not to issue the Public Distribution Supply to respondent No. 4, on the grounds taken in the memo of the writ petition. 3. Respondents have filed the reply. It is apt to reproduce para 2 of the reply on preliminary submissions herein. “2. That the Flour Mill of the respondent No. 4 has been registered by the replying respondent department as per the policy of the Govt. The State Govt. vide letter dated 18.9.2014 informed the replying respondent that all those applicants who have applied for registration of Mill with complete documents upto 11.7.2014 may be registered (Copy of letter is already enclosed as Annexure-P-4 with the writ petition. Ion this behalf it is submitted that the documents of the respondent No. 4 Mill has been received in the replying respondent office with all codal formalities prior to 11.7.2014 and the registration of the same has been done as per the policy of the Govt. Hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed in this score.” 4. The State authorities have specifically averred that the case of respondent No. 4 was processed as per the law applicable and requisite orders were made in terms of the Rules occupying the field. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner was asked to show whether any law occupying the field provides that no registration can be granted, failed to do so. 6. We have gone through the grounds projected in the writ petition. Virtually the petitioner wants monopoly, which is not permissible. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed alongwith pending applications, if any.