JUDGMENT : This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner challenging an order dated 05.01.2015 passed by the respondent no. 2 i.e. the Deputy Commissioner, Hailakandi whereby an earlier order dated 31.12.2014 passed by the respondent no. 2 has been kept in abeyance until further orders. Both the orders are relatable to lifting of S.K. Oil under the Public Distribution System [PDS]. 2. The petitioner is a Sub-Wholeseller of S.K. Oil for which he has been granted a license under the Assam Public Distribution of Articles Order, 1982 [‘the Articles Order’, for short]. The said license has been renewed from time to time. The license has permitted the petitioner to operate as a Sub-Wholeseller to carry on the business of Sub-Wholeseller of the notified article [S.K. Oil] in his area of operation : Village – Algapur-V. On the other hand, the respondent is a Co-operative society registered under the provisions of the Assam Co-operative Societies Act, 1949/2007. The area of operation of the respondent no. 3 is also Village -Algapur-V. 3. The petitioner also has a licence to import and store Petroleum Class B products which includes S.K. Oil, not exceeding 25,000 litres for storage of Petroleum Class B product i.e. S.K. Oil, the petitioner has a storage shed located at Village - Algapur-V. 4. The events which have relevance for the purpose of considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, can be stated to have originated from the year 1996. From a letter dated 05.11.1996, it is noticed that the Assistant Director, In-charge, Food and Civil Supplies, Hailakandi wrote to the concerned S.K. Oil depot at Algapur-V to issue S.K. Oil allotted for the respondent no. 3 Society to the petitioner from the month of November, 1996 onwards. The Assistant Director, In-charge, Food and Civil Supplies, Hailakandi had also informed the Secretary of the respondent no. 3 Society to lift the allotted S.K. Oil for the Society from the S.K. Oil depot from that month onwards. At the same time, the petitioner was informed that he would lift S.K. Oil from S.K. Oil depot at Algapur-V and issue the same to the respondent no. 3 Society by maintaining proper accounts. At that point of time, the respondent no. 3 Society did not have any storage license to store S.K. Oil allotted to the respondent no. 3 Society. 3 Society by maintaining proper accounts. At that point of time, the respondent no. 3 Society did not have any storage license to store S.K. Oil allotted to the respondent no. 3 Society. 5. On 06.06.2007, the In-charge, Zonal Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Cachar & Karimganj by his letter of even date had instructed the Assistant Registrars of Co-operative Societies under his jurisdiction to direct all the Gaon Panchayat Samabai Samittees [GPSSs] within their respective circles to lift S.K. Oil from S.K. Oil depot and to distribute/deliver the same to the agents/fair price shops from the storage of the respective GPSSs after obtaining necessary licence/permission from the concerned authority. It was pursuant to the said direction contained in the letter dated 06.06.2007, the Executive Committee of the respondent no. 3 Society by a resolution passed on 03.07.2007, decided to initiate necessary steps so that the respondent no. 3 Society can lift and distribute the S.K. Oil to the consumers under it through its own storage premises. After such resolution, the respondent no. 3 applied to the Deputy Commissioner, Hailakandi on 27.07.2007 to allow it to lift PDS S.K. Oil from S.K. Oil Depot directly and distribute amongst its agents from the storage of the respondent no. 3 Society and it had also sought for a storage licence for the respondent no. 3 Society. Acting upon the said application, the authorities processed the matter of issuance of Petroleum Class B storage licence in favour of the respondent no. 3 Society. The land particulars for the proposed S.K. Oil storage premises of the respondent no. 3 Society was verified under the directions of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Hailakandi. 6. When the application submitted by the respondent no. 3 Society for issuance of storage licence for Petroleum Class B products was kept pending for a prolonged period of time, the respondent no. 3 Society approached this Court by way of a writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 2738/2008 seeking inter alia direction to the Deputy Commissioner, Hailakandi to issue a storage licence for Petroleum Class B products for its area of operation at Algapur-V so as to enable the respondent no. 3 Society to store the S.K. Oil in its own storage premises and thereafter, to distribute the same to fair price shops, etc. The present petitioner participated in the said writ proceeding as the respondent no. 7. 3 Society to store the S.K. Oil in its own storage premises and thereafter, to distribute the same to fair price shops, etc. The present petitioner participated in the said writ proceeding as the respondent no. 7. Contention was advanced on behalf of the respondent no. 7 i.e. the present petitioner in W.P.[C] no. 2738/2008 to the effect that if storage licence was granted to the respondent no. 3 Society, the business of the present petitioner would be adversely affected. It was contended that the Sub-Wholeseller licence was granted to the present petitioner to deal with the notified trade articles [S.K. Oil] at Algapur-V. Having regard to the fact that the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner i.e. the Deputy Commissioner, Hailakandi is the licensing authority for issuance of storage licence, the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 2738/2008 was disposed of by an order dated 01.12.2008 with a direction to the licencing authority to dispose of the application filed by the respondent no. 3 Society on 27.07.2007 for storage license of S.K. Oil as per law. It was further directed that while considering the claim of the respondent no. 3 Society a grievance that might be raised by the petitioner should also be considered and be taken note of as well as to consider the fact that the respondent no. 3 Society had sought the licence for storage of S.K. Oil for distribution to its share-holders, by keeping in light the directive of the Cooperative Department. 7. After disposal of the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 2738/2008, notices were issued to the present petitioner and to the present respondent no. 3 Society on 31.12.2008 by asking for their appearance for hearing before the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner. The jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner as the licencing authority under the Articles Order heard both the present petitioner and the present respondent no. 3 and also called for a report from the Area Officer, Food and Civil Supplies at Algapur-V. After hearing all the parties, the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner had ordered to issue a no objection certificate for storage licence of S.K. Oil on 04.05.2009 in favour of the present respondent no. 3 Society subject to fulfillment of terms and conditions as per law. After issuance of the no objection certificate, the licencing authority had, on 18.05.2019, issued a storage licence in favour of the present respondent no. 3 Society subject to fulfillment of terms and conditions as per law. After issuance of the no objection certificate, the licencing authority had, on 18.05.2019, issued a storage licence in favour of the present respondent no. 3 Society in Form XI under the provisions of the Petroleum Act, 1934 and the Petroleum Rules, 2002 for the import and storage of 25,000 litres of Petroleum Class B products at the licenced premises, described therein. 8. The respondent no. 2 was issued storage licence in favour of the respondent no. 3 Society on 18.05.2009. As soon as the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner passed the order for issuance of no objection certificate in favour of the respondent no. 3 Society, the present petitioner approached this Court assailing the same by way of a writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 1903/2009. When the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 1903/2009 was pending the respondent no. 2 had passed an order under memo no. HS.28/2007/192 dated 27.05.2009. The said order allowed the respondent no. 3 Society to lift 22,779 litres of S.K. Oil from the concerned S.K. Oil depot at Algapur-V for distribution to the consumers through the GPSS dealers under the PDS. The order further observed that the present petitioner would lift 11790 litres of S.K. Oil from the concerned S.K. Oil depot out of the monthly allotment for distributing it amongst the hawkers and retailers. It was further observed that the said order dated 27.05.2009 was passed keeping in view the interests of the consumers but the same would be subject to the outcome of the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 1903/2009 and as there was no stay order of the Court as regards the NOC. 9. I have heard Mr. M.A. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. K. Goswami, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam for the respondent nos. 1 & 2; and Mr. H.I. Choudhury, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3. 10. The issuance of storage licence in favour of the present respondent no. 3 Society and the order dated 27.05.2009 came to be challenged by the present petitioner in another writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 2157/2009. During the pendency of the said two writ petitions, another order dated 31.12.2014 came to be passed by the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner i.e. the respondent no. 2. 3 Society and the order dated 27.05.2009 came to be challenged by the present petitioner in another writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 2157/2009. During the pendency of the said two writ petitions, another order dated 31.12.2014 came to be passed by the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner i.e. the respondent no. 2. By the said order, the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner had allowed the present writ petitioner to lift the quota of S.K. Oil amounting to 21,636 litres under the PDS meant for the respondent no. 3 Society from the concerned S.K. Oil depot and to distribute the same as per the sub-allotment of GPSS agents. The order further stated that the present writ petitioner would lift 11,200 litres of S.K. Oil, which was the allotted quota of S.K. Oil hawkers and retailers, from the concerned S.K. Oil depot under the supervision of the Area Officer, FCS & CA. The earlier order dated 27.05.2009 was withdrawn by the order dated 31.12.2014. Thereafter on 05.01.2015, the impugned order was passed by the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner whereby it kept the earlier order dated 31.12.2014 in abeyance. It was in the aforesaid backdrop of events, the respective contentions of the learned counsel for the parties are to be considered. 11. Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the present petitioner was granted the Sub-Wholeseller licence under the Articles Order to lift and distribute S.K. Oil for the Whole areas within Algapur-V and the petitioner has been doing the said business since 1996. Since a long time, the petitioner has been lifting the entire quantity meant for Algapur-V from the concerned S.K. Oil depot. The impugned order has the effect of reducing the quantity of S.K. Oil for lifting and distributing the same by the present petitioner as a substantial part had been allowed to be lifted by the respondent no. 3 Society. It is his contention that the impugned order has been passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the present petitioner. It is his further contention that the impugned order has the effect of curtailing his right to carry on the business as a Sub-Wholeseller under the provisions of Articles Order. 12. Mr. 3 Society. It is his contention that the impugned order has been passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the present petitioner. It is his further contention that the impugned order has the effect of curtailing his right to carry on the business as a Sub-Wholeseller under the provisions of Articles Order. 12. Mr. Goswami, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate has submitted that the arrangement made from the very beginning whereby the present petitioner was allowed to lift the quota of S.K. Oil meant for Algapur-V was a temporary arrangement and the same can be clearly deciphered from the orders passed by the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner from time to time. It is his submission that the impugned order has been passed considering the benefits of the ultimate consumers and the same is in larger public interest. The present petitioner herein is espousing only his private interests. In such view of the matter, the impugned order shall not be interfered with. 13. Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 Society has submitted that the respondent no. 3 Society has within its jurisdiction a number of fair price shops through which the allotted quantities of S.K. Oil PDS items were distributed and are to be distributed to the ultimate beneficiaries. The jurisdictional authority allots particular quantity of S.K. Oil for the entire Algapur-V area and the respondent no. 3 Society is in existence prior to issuance of storage licence in favour of the present petitioner. As the respondent no. 3 Society did not have any storage licence for S.K. Oil depot earlier, the allotted quota of PDS item [S.K. Oil] of the respondent no. 3 Society was allowed to be lifted by the present petitioner. 14. I have duly considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the materials brought on record by the parties through their pleadings. 15. A perusal of the letter dated 05.11.1996 goes to indicate that the concerned S.K. Oil depot was directed to allow the present petitioner to issue allotment orders in respect of S.K. Oil meant for the present respondent no. 3 Society. The present petitioner was ordered to lift the quota from the concerned S.K. Oil depot and to issue the same to the respondent no. 3 Society by maintaining proper records. 3 Society. The present petitioner was ordered to lift the quota from the concerned S.K. Oil depot and to issue the same to the respondent no. 3 Society by maintaining proper records. Direction was also made by the Assistant Director, In-charge, Food and Civil Supplies to the respondent no. 3 Society to lift the allotted S.K. Oil for the respondent no. 3 Society from the concerned S.K. Oil depot. Thus, it can be clearly seen that in the year 1996 also, the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner had allotted a quota to the respondent no. 3 Society but the present petitioner was only allowed to lift the said quota on behalf of the respondent no. 3 Society. When storage licence got issued in favour of the respondent no. 3 Society on 18.05.2019, the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner, based on the reports of the concerned Area Officer, decided to re-arrange the earlier arrangement by allowing the respondent no. 3 Society to lift its allotted quota of S.K. Oil from the concerned S.K. Oil depot by its order dated 27.05.2009. 16. The present petitioner as the existing Sub-Wholeseller licensee of SK Oil was allotted quota of 11,790 litres from the concerned SK Oil depot out of the monthly allotment for Algapur-V area for distributing the same to the hawkers and retailers. The jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner observed the order dated 27.05.2009 to be a temporary order subject to the outcome of the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 1903/2009. Thereafter, the present petitioner submitted an application before the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner. But what prayer was made by the present petitioner through the said application is not placed before this Court. Be that as it may, the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner had passed the order dated 31.12.2014 on such application whereby the present petitioner was allowed to lift the quota of PDS S.K. Oil of the respondent no. 3 Society and distribute the same as per allotment of GPSS agents and the earlier arrangement made vide order dated 27.05.2009 was withdrawn. 17. After passing of the order dated 31.12.2014, the present petitioner had withdrawn both the writ petitions, W.P.[C] no. 1903/2009 and W.P.[C] no. 2157/2009 with the liberty to avail appropriate legal remedy if any fresh cause of action accrued. On his such prayers, both the writ petitions were disposed of on 14.09.2015 as not pressed. 17. After passing of the order dated 31.12.2014, the present petitioner had withdrawn both the writ petitions, W.P.[C] no. 1903/2009 and W.P.[C] no. 2157/2009 with the liberty to avail appropriate legal remedy if any fresh cause of action accrued. On his such prayers, both the writ petitions were disposed of on 14.09.2015 as not pressed. With the withdrawal of the two writ petitions, no challenge remained to the no objection certificate [NOC] and the Petroleum B storage license issued in favour of the present respondent no. 3 Society. The storage licence for storing Petroleum B product, S.K. Oil issued in favour of the respondent no. 3 Society and the order dated 27.05.2009 attained finality. From a perusal of the order dated 05.01.2015, it is seen that 30 nos. of fair price shop owners under the respondent no. 3 Society made a prayer before the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner to allow them to lift their monthly quota of S.K. Oil from the respondent no. 3 Society instead of the present petitioner, a Sub-Wholeseller licensee of S.K. Oil. 18. The fair price shop owners are retailers under the Articles Order. A fair price shop owner is appointed as a dealer who sells in one or more of the notified articles which includes S.K. Oil, to such holders of family identity cards, at such prices, any such quantities and at such intervals as may be ordered by the licencing authority after getting the same from a Sub-Wholeseller GPSS like the respondent no. 3 Society. The impugned order came to be passed pursuant to a prayer petition made by 30 nos. of fair price shop owners. It cannot be ignored that the ultimate beneficiaries of S.K. Oil are the family identity card holders. The public distribution of notified articles including S.K. Oil are being sold to these ultimate beneficiaries at subsidized price. The respondent no. 3 Society as a Gaon Panchayat Samabai Samittee [GPSS] has a number of retailers [fair price shop owners] under its aegis through which it distributes the S.K. Oil to the ultimate beneficiaries. Such arrangement is not available to the present petitioner who is also a Sub-Wholeseller license of S.K. Oil. 19. From the materials on record, it has clearly emerged that the respondent no. Such arrangement is not available to the present petitioner who is also a Sub-Wholeseller license of S.K. Oil. 19. From the materials on record, it has clearly emerged that the respondent no. 3 Society did not have any storage licence under the Petroleum Act, 1934 at earlier times which disabled it to lift its allotted quota of S.K. Oil from the concerned S.K. Oil depot and thereafter, to store it in a licenced storage premises for distribution to the ultimate beneficiaries through the fair price shop owners. But on and from 18.05.2019, the respondent no. 3 Society had a license storage to store the Petroleum Class B products [S.K. Oil] in its own licenced storage premise after issuance of the storage licence under the Petroleum Act, 1934. When the distribution network of the present petitioner and the respondent no. 3 Society, who has a number of fair price shop retailers under its aegis, are considered against one another, it is the distribution network of the respondent no. 3 Society which can be considered to be the better one. If the ultimate beneficiaries i.e. the family identity card holders can access their allotted quotas of S.K. Oil from the nearby fair price shop retailers then the public interests seem to be better served then an arrangement where they have to get their allotted quotas from the present petitioner. 20. By the impugned order, the petitioner’s right to carry on the business of S.K. Oil has not been interfered with. What has resulted from the impugned order is reduction in the quantity of S.K. Oil which was allowed to be lifted by him every month earlier. From the materials on record, it has clearly emerged that the present petitioner was earlier allowed to lift two quotas -one quota which was allotted to him as a Sub-Wholeseller licensee of S.K. Oil and the other part which was allowed to be lifted by him, was the quota originally and throughout meant for the respondent no. 3 Society. It transpires from the above sequence of events, the impugned order might result in reduction in profit margins to the present petitioner. 3 Society. It transpires from the above sequence of events, the impugned order might result in reduction in profit margins to the present petitioner. Such reduction in profit margins to the present petitioner which might be the outcome of the impugned order when placed in juxtaposition with the public interests that is going to be served by granting the opportunities to the ultimate beneficiaries of S.K. Oil to get their allotted quotas from nearby fair price shops retailers operating under the aegis of the present respondent no. 3 Society, it is the element of public interests which should be given precedence over the private interests of the present petitioner. 21. In such view of the matter, this Court has not found any good and sufficient reason to interfere with the impugned order put to challenge by the present petitioner in this writ petition. Having regard to the presence of the element of public interest in the impugned order, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has not been able to make out a case to interfere with the impugned order and resultantly, the present writ petition is found to be bereft of merits. Consequently, the same is dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to cost.