JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Shri Alok Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. Shri K. N. Mishra, leaned counsel for the respondent no. 6 is not present though the matter is called in the revised list. 2. By means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 7th March, 2009 whereby the licence fair price shop of the respondent no. 6 has come to be restored with a penalty of Rs. 2,000/-. The grievance of the petitioner is that complaint was not properly examination and the reasons assigns are not sufficient enough for restoring the licence of the fair price shop. 3. We find that while the writ petition was entertained by this Court under the order dated 10.4.2009 this Court had questioned the maintainability of the present writ petition and issued notices to the respondent no. 6, but declined to grant any interim stay order. The situation has not changed today either. The petitioner is at the most enjoys status a complainant who had a grievance regarding running of the fair price shop licence. The privity of the contract between licencing authority and the respondent no. 6 shall govern the field if the licence has come to be restored by the State-respondent in favour of respondent no. 6, the complainant, in our considered opinion does not enjoy the right to litigate the matter further invoking our extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Apex Court in case of Laxminarayan R. Bhattad & Ors vs State Of Maharashtra & Anr, (2003) 5 SCC 413 has held that in order to maintain writ petition one can have locus if he has legally enforceable right and that we do not find in the present case. Further invoking the principle laid down in the case of Utkal University vs. Dr. Nrusingha Charan Sarangi, (1999) AIR SC 943 petitioner herein since would not be benefited by cancellation of fair price shop licence, he cannot be aggrieved person to maintain the writ petition. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the another judgment of the Apex Court in Gadde Venkateswara Rao versus Government of Andhra Pradesh, (1966) AIR SC 828. In support of his argument that he being a complainant has a right to file a writ petition challenging the order. 5. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the another judgment of the Apex Court in Gadde Venkateswara Rao versus Government of Andhra Pradesh, (1966) AIR SC 828. In support of his argument that he being a complainant has a right to file a writ petition challenging the order. 5. We have carefully studied the judgment and find that in that case the appellant's right to file petition was upheld on the ground that he was President of the Panchayat Samiti that formed a Committee headed by the same president to collect money/fund to establish a primary health centre and so the committee were trustees of the amount collected and further appellant in that capacity was dealing with officials regarding location of health centre. It is in the backdrop of the above facts peculiar to the said case that applying the principle laid down by the Apex Court in an earlier judgment [The Calcutta Gas Company versus The State of West Bengal and others, (1962) Supp3 SCR 1] the Court held that a personal right need not be in respect of a proprietary interest, it can also relate to an interest of trustee and even in exceptional case as the expression 'ordinarily' indicates, a person who has been prejudicially affected by an act or opinion of the authority can file a writ even though he has no proprietary or even fiduciary interest in the subject matter thereof. 6. In the said above case the site of primary health centre was sought to be changed inspite of deposit of money by Committee that collected the fund and the land was also donated. The Court then applying the above principle held that appellant has certainly been prejudiced by the said order and petition, therefore, under Article 226 was maintainable. Thus, on facts of the above case cited by the petitioner is distinguishable and the judgment, in our considered opinion, is of no help to the petitioner. . 7. We further notice that in the present case there were a general complaint, including complaint of the petitioner and the authorities have duly applied their mind and in their well considered opinion they have found that there was no serious-illegality in discharge of onerous duty of the distribution of essential commodities by the petitioner. . 7. We further notice that in the present case there were a general complaint, including complaint of the petitioner and the authorities have duly applied their mind and in their well considered opinion they have found that there was no serious-illegality in discharge of onerous duty of the distribution of essential commodities by the petitioner. We, therefore, do not find it to be an appropriate case where findings of fact so recorded by the authority should be judicially reviewed. Writ petition accordingly fails and is dismissed.