ORDER : Petitioner was granted an authorization to run a fair price shop at Badarli village, covering the area of Thimmapur village, Sindhanur Taluk, Raichur. The authorization was renewed upto 31.12.2019. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that, on the instigation of the fourth respondent, the second respondent passed an order dated 08.03.2019 as per Annexure‘E’ establishing a new fair price shop at Thimmapur village bifurcating 457 cards which were earlier assigned to the petitioner’s fair price shop without issuing prior notice to the petitioner and without conducting any inquiry, in violation of Rule 11 of the Karnataka Essential Commodities (Public Distribution System) Control Order 2016 (hereinafter referred to as “PDS Control Order”). 3. In the course of his arguments, learned counsel pointed out that, apart from violations of the PDS Control Order, the impugned order has been passed at the behest of the District Incharge Minister, Raichur and in view of the impugned order, petitioner is left with only 394 cardholders as rest of the area falls within Thimmapura village. Learned counsel has referred to Rule 4 and Rule 6 of the PDS Control Order and would submit that the impugned order has been passed without calling for applications by publication and without giving minimum 30 days time as prescribed in Rule 4 and without considering the order of priority for grant of authorization as stipulated in Rule 6 of the PDS Control Order. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.4 contended that alternative and efficacious remedy by way of appeal and revision is provided under Rule 17 of the PDS Control Order and as such, writ petition is not maintainable. Further he submitted that the impugned order reflects that prior enquiry was held by the second respondent calling for a report from the Tahsildar, Sindhanur with regard to the actual number of ration cards dealt in the fair price shops run by the petitioner. As per Rule 11(2) of the PDS Control Order, the number of ration cards assigned to a fair price depot shall not be less than 500 for a fair price depot in a rural area and not less than 800 for a fair price depot in an urban area. As per Rule 11(2) of the PDS Control Order, the number of ration cards assigned to a fair price depot shall not be less than 500 for a fair price depot in a rural area and not less than 800 for a fair price depot in an urban area. The fair price shop run by the petitioner is situated in a rural area and hence on ascertaining that the number of ration cards assigned to the petitioner were more than 500 and considering the distance from Badarli village and Thimmapur village, to obviate inconvenience to the cardholders, the second respondent has exercised the jurisdiction vested under Rule 11 of the PDS Control Order and as such, there is no infirmity and illegality whatsoever in the action taken by the second respondent warranting interference by this Court. He further emphasized the very object of the PDS Control Order is to provide facilities to the cardholders near their residence. Under the said circumstance, the second respondent lawfully having exercised the jurisdiction vested in him, writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. Learned AGA appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 argued justifying the action of the second respondent, contending that the impugned order has been passed in accordance with Rule 11 of the PDS Control Order. Proviso to said rule provides for relaxation of limit upto 100 cards for a fair price depot in a rural area if the fair price depot is to serve the needs of an isolated settlement or layout where the number of ration cards is below the limit prescribed. In the instant case, the impugned order has been passed taking into consideration the actual number of beneficiaries as well as distance between two villages and hence, there is no reason to interfere with the impugned order. Learned AGA further emphasized that in view of the availability of alternative remedy under Rule 17 of the PDS Control Order, the instant petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. On hearing learned counsel for petitioner, learned AGA for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and learned counsel for respondent No.4, I find that the impugned order has been passed in utter violation of the provisions of the PDS Control Order. 6. On hearing learned counsel for petitioner, learned AGA for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and learned counsel for respondent No.4, I find that the impugned order has been passed in utter violation of the provisions of the PDS Control Order. 7(i) Rule 11 of the PDS Control Order provides that, the Authorized Authority shall assign to the fair price depot a certain number of ration cards belonging to persons residing near the fair price depot. Sub-Rule (2) thereof prescribes that, the number of ration cards assigned to a fair price depot under sub-rule (1) shall not be less than 500 for a fair price depot in a rural area and not less than 800 for a fair price depot in an urban area. Proviso to the said Rule empowers the authorized authority, for reasons to be recorded in writing, to relax the limit upto 100 cards for a fair price depot in a rural area if the fair price depot is to serve the needs of an isolated settlement or layout. 7(ii) This Rule cannot be construed to mean that in every case, if the number of cardholders assigned to a fair price depot exceeds the limit prescribed under sub-rule (2), the authorized officer has to transfer the ration cards to another fair price depot. No doubt sub-rule (3) of Rule 11 empowers the authorized officer, if he considers it necessary to transfer ration cards from one fair price shop to another, but in the instant case, the impugned order at Annexure ‘E’ is not intended to transfer the ration cards from one fair price depot to another rather by the impugned order the authorized officer has permitted establishment of a new fair price shop without complying with any of the rules and procedure provided under the PDS Control Order 2016. 7(iii) As per Rule 4 of the PDS Control Order 2016, before issue of authorization to any person to be authorized as dealer/agency to supply essential commodities under the provisions of this Order, the authorized officer is required to call for applications by publication of a notice and is required to comply various other requirements prescribed therein. The rule reads as under: “4. The rule reads as under: “4. Application for Authorization: (1) The authorized authority shall call for applications by publication of a notice after giving a minimum of thirty days time and publishing the same on the notice board of his office and at the office of the Tahsildar of the Taluk, office of the Taluk Panchayat Samithi, office of the Mandal Panchayat concerned, Town Municipal Council, Municipal Corporation, Range Offices of the Food and Civil Supplies Department concerned, as the case may be. (2) Every application for an authorization or renewal thereof, shall be made to the authorized authority in Form ‘A’. (3) Every authorization issued or renewed under this order shall be in Form – ‘B’ and shall be subject to the conditions specified therein. Provided that the authorization to Authorized Agency shall be issued for transportation of PDS commodities who are selected through a process specified by the Commissioner. (4) Every application for Authorization of Authorized Agency shall be made to the Authorized Authority in Form A1 and every Authorization issued or renewed in respect of Authorized Agency shall be in Form A2.” This rule has been observed only in its breach. Undeniably, no notice was published calling for applications and the formalities prescribed in the rule have not been followed. As such, solely on this ground, the impugned order Annexure E is liable to be set aside. 7(iv) Further, Rule 6 of the PDS Control Order, 2016 prescribes the order of priority for grant of authorization. The rule reads as under: “6. Order of Priority for Grant of authorization: (1) subject to the provisions of Clause 5, the authorized authority shall follow the following order of priority for granting authorization. 7(iv) Further, Rule 6 of the PDS Control Order, 2016 prescribes the order of priority for grant of authorization. The rule reads as under: “6. Order of Priority for Grant of authorization: (1) subject to the provisions of Clause 5, the authorized authority shall follow the following order of priority for granting authorization. (a) Authorized Wholesale Dealer: (i) State Government owned Corporation/ Undertakings or Companies (b) Fair Price Shops: (i) State Government owned Corporation/ Undertakings or Companies or Gram Panchayats/Urban Local bodies (ii) (a) PACS (Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society); (b) The Horticultural Produces Cooperative Marketing and Processing Society Limited (HOPCOMS); (c) Milk Producers Cooperative Societies sponsored by KMF; (d) TAPCMS (Taluk Agricultural Primary Agricultural Cooperative Marketing Society or VSSN Society; (iii) Stree Shakthi Groups, located in same village or locality where the fair price shop is to be allotted, recognized by the Women and Child Development Department, Government of Karnataka and which have been in existence for not less than 3 years maintaining a minimum bank balance of Rs.1 lakh continuously for last 1 year as on the date of application as well as satisfying any other additional conditions specified by Commissioner from time to time. Provided that the qualifications for a Self Help Group can be relaxed by the Authorized Authority for special areas as defined in proviso to clause 11(2) of the Order. Provided that if there are more than one eligible self help groups satisfying the required conditions, then the allotment of fair price shop shall be done through a draw of lots. (2) The authorized authority shall replace the existing dealer if its authorization is cancelled for any reason by granting an authorization to another institution in the order of priority specified under sub-clause (1). These rules are prescribed to obviate arbitrary exercise of powers by the authorized authority in the matter of authorization of dealership or agency. But, unfortunately, none of these rules have been followed by the respondent No.2 in granting authorization in favour of respondent No.4. The impugned order Annexure-E therefore is ex-facie illegal, arbitrary and violative of Rules 6 and 11 of the PDS Control Order, is liable to be set aside. 8. But, unfortunately, none of these rules have been followed by the respondent No.2 in granting authorization in favour of respondent No.4. The impugned order Annexure-E therefore is ex-facie illegal, arbitrary and violative of Rules 6 and 11 of the PDS Control Order, is liable to be set aside. 8. No doubt, Rule 17 of the PDS Control Order, 2016 provides for remedy of appeal and revision, but in the circumstances of this case, the appeal remedy provided under Rule 17 of the PDS Control Order, 2016, in my view, is totally inefficacious and cannot be resorted by the petitioner for the reason that the impugned order has been passed at the behest of the Minister for Animal Husbandry and Fisheries and Incharge Minister, Raichur District. The Appellate Authority constituted under the PDS Control Order, 2016 is none other than the Officer appointed by the State Government and in the said circumstances remedy of appeal would only be illusory and would be a futile exercise. Moreover, the petitioner having established that the impugned order is manifestly illegal and attended with malafides and having been passed in stark violation of the statutory provisions and the guidelines prescribed under the PDS Control Order, 2016, the availability of alternative remedy cannot oust the jurisdiction and inherent powers of the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. For the above reasons, writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 08.03.2019 passed by respondent No.2The Deputy Director, Food and Civil Supplies & Consumer Affairs Department, Raichur in No.XXX XXXdated: 08.03.2019 at Annexure E is setaside. It is made clear that this order shall not come in the way of respondent No.2 or the Authorized Authority to issue authorization to any person in respect of the subject ration cards strictly in accordance with Karnataka Essential Commodities Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016. Until then, the petitioner shall be authorized to distribute the essential commodities to the existing card holders covering the area of Badarli and Timmapur villages, Sindhanur Taluk, Raichur District.