Judgment : 1. Since the issue involved in all these writ petitions is one and same therefore, they were heard together and are being decided by this common order. For the sake of convenience, facts of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9137/2016 are being taken as leading case. 2. The petitioners have challenged advertisement dated 03.03.2015 and orders dated 06.04.2016 and 18.04.2016 whereby the respondents have invited applications for opening additional fair price shops (FPS) in different districts of State of Rajasthan, without determining the validity of existing fair price shops. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that a committee was constituted by the Supreme Court in the matter of public distribution system headed by former Justice Mr. D.P. Wadhwa (Judge, Supreme Court of India). The said Committee submitted its report recommending in para No. 19 that number of ration cards attached to a shop has a direct bearing on the income of FPS and there should be rationalization of cards for each FPS. There is a need for rationalization of the number of beneficiaries attached to the FPS to make the shops financially viable. Each FPS should have 500 to 1000 cards. If number of ration cards exceeds 1000, the FPS should be bifurcated. However, the respondents have totally ignored the aforesaid recommendation of Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.P. Wadhwa Committee(for short ‘Justice Wadhwa Committee’) before issuing the impugned advertisement as well as orders. It is submitted that the present petitioners, besides others, have challenged impugned advertisement dated 03.03.2015 by filing Writ Petition No. 5460/2015, Shri Bhawani Singh Gurjar and Others Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others which was decided by this Court on 23.04.2015 directing the respondents to ensure that 500 ration cards in respect of the each petitioner’s fair price shops are maintained. However, the respondents without examining the petitioners case, in an arbitrary manner, have proceeded to issue said advertisement dated 03.03.2015. Impugned advertisement has been issued without any legal requirement and application of mind and the same is against the policy of the Government also. It is argued that requisite sanction/requirement has not been taken by the respondents from concerned Gram Panchayats, nor any demarcation/survey was conducted prior to issuance of aforesaid advertisement dated 03.03.2015. Impugned advertisement has been issued without any legal requirement and application of mind and the same is against the policy of the Government also. It is argued that requisite sanction/requirement has not been taken by the respondents from concerned Gram Panchayats, nor any demarcation/survey was conducted prior to issuance of aforesaid advertisement dated 03.03.2015. The aforesaid advertisement and orders dated 06.04.2016 and 18.04.2016 clearly violated fundamental rights of the petitioners and they are violative of principle of natural justice because no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioners and the same are liable to be quashed and set aside. Learned counsel for the petitioners have relied upon the judgments of this Court in Babushyam & Ramphool Gurjar Vs. State of Rajathan & Others(S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4384/2012 decided on 18.09.2012); Jitendra Singh & Others Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Others(S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5101/2015 decided on 30.04.2015). 4. Learned Additional Government Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents opposed the writ petitions and argued that the petitioners have no locus standi in the present matters. The respondents have issued advertisement as per the guidelines dated 09.02.2015 issued by the Food Department after approval of the District Collector. It is submitted that the advertisement inviting offers for allotment of fair price shops, were neither finalized, nor any order was passed by which the number of ration cards or the units attached to them were reduced. The direction to carry out survey for allotment of new fair price shops, in which there should be at least 500 ration cards attached to a fair price shop, did not in any way, violate the petitioners’ rights, inasmuch as the object of the public distribution scheme is to ensure fair and equitable distribution of the scheduled commodities. The petitioners do not have either contractual or any legal right to insist upon opening fair price shops with at least 500 ration cards. As per the survey conducted by the respondents for creation of new fair price shops, the respondents for smooth distribution of controlled articles, issued advertisement dated 03.03.2015. Creation of new fair price shops is necessary and in the interest of general public as the residents of the area are living far from the existing fair price shops and it will ensure smooth distribution of controlled articles. Creation of new fair price shops is necessary and in the interest of general public as the residents of the area are living far from the existing fair price shops and it will ensure smooth distribution of controlled articles. The petitioners have more than 500 ration cards, attached to their shops and there was no threat to the viability of their business. 5. Learned Additional Government Counsel further argued that the authorization was issued to the petitioners in prescribed manner on certain condition mentioned therein and therefore, rights and obligations of fair price shop keepers/dealers are governed by said authorization letter. There is nothing in the said authorization letter which suggests minimum requirement of card holders to run the fair price shop. Though, the State Government has issued guidelines to ensure that the fair price shop should have 500 card holders, even then such guidelines would not create any legal right in favour of the petitioners. The guidelines or executive instructions do no confer any legal right. This Court cannot formulate the policy as to how many card holders should be attached to a fair price shop. Action of the respondents is in conformity to guidelines issued by the State Government as also recommendations of Justice Wadhwa Committee. Learned Additional Government Counsel in support of his arguments relied upon judgment of this Court dated 11.05.2015 in Kailash Chand & Others Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Others(S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6121/2015) which judgment was upheld by Division Bench of this Court in Hari Om Meena & Another Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Others(D.B. Civil Special Appeal(Writ) No. 400/2015 decided on 28.07.2015). 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners rejoined and argued that even though the Division Bench in the case of Hari Om Meena and Another(supra) has held that there can be less than 500 ration cards in a fair price shop because in that case, the Division Bench was apprised of the fact that the writ petitioners/appellants in those matters were having less than 500 ration cards. 7. I have given my anxious consideration to rival submissions and carefully perused the material on record. 8. 7. I have given my anxious consideration to rival submissions and carefully perused the material on record. 8. The petitioners have relied upon the judgment rendered by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Babushyam & Ramphool Gurjar(supra) wherein, learned Single Judge disposed off the writ petition with direction that the number of ration cards attached to Fair Price Shops of the petitioners therein be maintained and prior to allotment of new Fair Price Shops to Women Cooperative Societies, the number of 500 ration cards in respect of each Fair Price Shop be ensured as per the government’s own policy and the Justice Wadhwa Committee report. When the aforesaid judgment was cited before this Court on 30.04.2015 in Jitendra Singh & Others(supra), this Court even though observed that issue of commission payable to the dealers of fair price shops is fundamentally a matter of contract between the State Government and the dealers, but required the petitioners therein to make a detailed representation in this regard to the State Government in its Department of Food and required the State Government to decide the same in the context of necessity of fair price shops being economically viable with further direction to ensure that 500 ration cards in respect of petitioners’ fair price shops therein are maintained. In this connection, it was also observed that if necessary, the respondents shall restructure to the extent necessary, the fair price shops in the concerned Tehsil/Gram Panchayat. 9. Another Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Kailash Chand & Others(supra) held that there is no vested right in favour of the petitioners therein to have minimum 500 cards holders. Even if it is presumed that the State Government has issued guidelines to ensure that the fair price shop should have 500 card holders, then also guidelines would not create any legal right. Guidelines or executive instructions do no confer any legally enforceable right, nor courts can formulate the policy as to how many card holders should be attached to a fair price shop. Such matter would be within the domain of administrative decision and cannot be an issue of judicial review. Similar orders were passed in other writ petitions while dismissing them. Guidelines or executive instructions do no confer any legally enforceable right, nor courts can formulate the policy as to how many card holders should be attached to a fair price shop. Such matter would be within the domain of administrative decision and cannot be an issue of judicial review. Similar orders were passed in other writ petitions while dismissing them. When the matter was taken up before Division Bench of this Court, the Division Bench of this Court dismissed ten special appeals in the case of Hari Om Meena & Another(supra) upholding aforesaid orders passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, noting that almost all the petitioners therein have more than 500 ration cards, attached to their shops and thus, there was no threat to the viability of their business. Division Bench further held that the writ petitions, giving rise to those special appeals, were based only on the apprehension and there was no legal injury suffered by them to maintain the writ petitions. Division Bench of this Court in Para 4 of the judgment observed as under: “4. We find that the petitioners had not acquired any cause of action to file the writ petitions, inasmuch as the advertisement inviting offers for allotment of fair price shops, were neither finalized, nor any order was passed, by which the number of ration cards or the units attached to them were reduced. In the letter of the Deputy Commissioner/Deputy Secretary, Food, Supply and Consumer Affairs Department, Government of Rajasthan, dated 07.04.2010, there was a direction to carry out survey, on which new fair price shops may be established, where it is found that number of ration cards are less than 500. It was directed that the advertisement should be made so that number of cards attached to a fair price shop do not fall below 500 ration cards, or 2000 units. The direction to carry out survey for allotment of new fair price shops, in which there should be at least 500 ration cards attached to a fair price shop, did not in any way, violate the petitioners' rights, inasmuch as the object of the public distribution scheme, is to ensure fair and equitable distribution of the scheduled commodities.” Justice D.P. Wadhwa in para 19 of his report concluded thus: “Number of ration cards attached to a shop has a direct bearing on the income of FPS. There should be rationalization of cards for each FPS. There is a need for rationalization of the number of beneficiaries attached to the FPS to make the shops financially viable. Each FPS should have from 500 to 1000 cards. If number of ration cards exceeds 1000, the FPS should be bifurcated.” 10. In view of direct Division Bench judgment, this Court is not inclined to interfere in these writ petitions. However, all the writ petitions are disposed off with the observation that if the State Government in future decides to invite fresh applications for selection of fair price shop dealers, it shall keep in view the Justice Wadhwa Committee’s recommendations, which apparently was meant to ensure reasonable income to the fair price shop dealers so that they do not indulge in malpractices and consider having minimum 500 ration cards. It, however, goes without saying that there is no legal or vested right of the petitioners to insist upon having a particular number of ration cards. Stay applications also stands disposed off. Office is directed to place a copy of this judgment on record of each connect writ petition.