ORDER
S.S. Subramani, J.
1. This writ petition is filed by three Co-operative Societies for the issuance of a writ of certio-rari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of a writ calling for the records of the 2nd respondent in Na. Ka. No. 4461 of 1997 Pu. vi. and quash the order made therein, dated 26.5.1997, and thus render justice.
2. Third respondent is also another Cooperative Society by name The Madura Coats Employees Co-operative Stores Limited. The third respondent was formed by the Employees of the Madura Coats Company for their welfare and it was also doing the busi-ness of distributing essential commodities to the card-holders. The staff of the 3rd respondent want on indefinite strike from 23.8.1995. Even before that, the financial position of the third respondent was not good. When the staff also struck their work, the fair price shops under its control were directed to be taken over by the three petitioners in this writ petition. It is the case of the three petitioners that there were eight fair price shops under the control of the third respondent and they were transferred to the petitioners as per the Order of the Joint Registrar, dated 9.9.1995.
3. Subsequent to the take over of the business by the three petitioners; it is said that they are doing yeo-men service to the members of the public and the consumers are also satisfied about the service they are doing. At the same time, it is also stated that the third respondent became defunct and the employees also could not be paid their salary, for 20 months. It was at that time, petitioners were asked to take control of the fair price shops. After election, the new office-bearers took management of the various Soci-eties. The management of the third respondent-Stores was also entrusted with the newly elected members. At their pressure, respondents 1 and 2 have now directed that the eight shops which the petitioners have taken control may be returned to the third respondent. The order was passed by the first respondent on 21.5.1997, and on that basis, second respondent, by his proceedings dated 26.5.1997, has directed transfer of those shops from the petitioners to the third respondent. Petitioners say that the third respondent is even now in financial difficulties and the general public also will not be getting satisfaction. The difficulties of the members of the public are not taken into consideration by the respondents 1 and 2. The direction of the second respondent is, therefore, sought to be quashed by filing this writ petition. In the grounds it is said that the first respondent has no authority to transfer the fair price shops run by the petitioner. When the earlier transfer was made in pub-lic interest, the retransfer also should be made in pub-lic interest alone. Otherwise, the very purpose will be defeated and the general public will be put to difficulties. The financial position of the third respondent was also considered while giving the direction.
4. Second respondent has filed a detailed counter in the main writ petition itself. It has been filed along with W.M.P. No. 18116 of 1997. First respondent has also filed a counter in that W.M.P.
5. Third respondent has filed W.M.P. 12679 of 1997 along with a counter-affidavit, with a prayer that the same may be treated as counter-affidavit in the main writ petition itself.
6. The contentions in both the counters are similar.
7. In the counter affidavit of the first respondent it is said that the shops in question were transferred to the petitioners Societies by first respondent based on the recommendations of the second respondent-Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies. It is also asserted by first respondent that he is the competent authority to grant permission and licence to run fair price shops, and the petitioners have no right to question the validity of the order on the ground of authority. The fair price shops are under the constant supervision of the officers of the Department of Revenue and Co-operation and the said eight fair price shops were transferred, only as a temporary measure. It is also asserted by the first respondent that the transfer was made not on the basis of financial depression on the part of the first respondent, but only owing to the indefinite strike by the employees. When the staff went on strike, in the interest of public, it was thought that the public distribution system should not fail, and as a temporary measure, the same was given to the petitioners. It was also asserted by first respondent that he has got absolute right to give direction for transfer of the shops and also direct the retransfer. The question of violation of principles of natural justice also will not arise. It is within the discretionary powers of the first respondent, taking into consideration the interest of the general public. It is also sub mitted that the Joint Registrar of the Cooperative Societies have also recommended for the retransfer of the eight fair price shops back to the third respondent, and, his recommendation was also taken into consideration for passing the order. The contention that the petitioners have no alternative or effective remedy is also denied by the first respondent.
8. In the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent, it is stated that the third respondent was run-ning eight fair price shops. Out of the eight, three shops were situated in Gnaniar Thopu (Head Office Building), three shops were situated in Pudumanai Street (Branch office Building), one shop at Agasthiyarpatti (Branch Building) and the other at Kattapulli Street (Rented building) in Vikramasingapuram Town Panchayat. There are nearly 7,566 card-holders attached to the eight shops. The card-holders in 1 to 7 shops are members of the stores. The card-holders in the 8th shop are members of the stores and the General Public residing in Vikramasingapuram Town Panchayat. Without any difficulty, the card-holders had easy access to the stores building and got not only essential commodities but also non-controlled goods required. When the employees of the third respondent went on strike from 1.7.1996 without proper notice, in order to tide over the crisis, the then Special Officer of the Stores requested the Deputy Registrar to transfer the eight fair price shops to other Cooperative Agencies. It was in consequence of the same, the stores were temporarily transferred to the petitioners. After election to the Board of Directors, a committee was formed and it was decided to take serious steps to rehabilitate the affairs of their respondent stores. A proposal was also made to get Rs. 225 lakhs from Tamil Nadu Cooperative Union and recommendations have been made for rehabilitating the third respondent, and resumption of public distribution system was one of the measures for such purpose. In fact, pursuant to this direction, two shops run by Koola Ambur Pri-mary Agricultural Cooperative Bank were handed over to the third respondent-Stores, and what re-mained only the six shops run by the petitioners. Second respondent also denied the allegation regarding the weak financial position of the third respondent. The third respondent has got cash credit accommo-dation with the Tirunelveli District Central Co-operative Bank through which goods are made available for running all the public distribution system shop, and the Government is also bound to provide funds under the same. The second respondent also asserts that the Collector-first respondent is the Competent authority to grant permission and licence to run fair price shops. The allegation that the third respondent has become defunct is also denial. The question of natural justice also does not arise in such cases, for, the Government has taken into consideration only the convenience of the public, and the petitioners have no fundamental right that they alone are entitled to do business, especially in regard to essential Commodities. The provisional arrangement could be out an end to at any time, and that alone has been done in this case. It is also contended that the petitioners cannot invoke the jurisdiction of Article 226 of the Constitution when they have no fundamental right, and no writ also could be issued at their instance. They seek for dismissal of the writ petition.
9. Though the third respondent has also filed a sepa-rate counter affidavit, I do not want to repeat the same, for, the facts are similar to the one that are stated by other respondents.
10. After having considered all the facts, I do not think the writ petitioner is entitled to any relief.
11. Second respondent issued the proceedings only on the basis of the first respondent who is the competent authority to issue the licence. The relief prayed for in the writ petition is to quash the proceedings of the second respondent, which is consequential to the main order issued by first respondent.
12. When the main order is not challenged, and what the second respondent does is only implementing the order of first respondent, I do not think that any re-lief could be granted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
13. Even on merits, petitioners do not have an arguable case. In this case, third respondent was all along doing the business, and due to employees’ strike, the business had to be entrusted to the petitioners-Soci-ety. Taking into consideration the above circumstances, it is clear that it is only a provisional arrangement. When the strike was called off, the management thought of reviving the third respondent-soci-ety, and one of the Schemes for the revival was to restart the public distribution system which it was holding earlier. Since the entrustment of the Stores with the petitioners was only temporary, the same could be withdrawn at any time. Petitioners have no fundamental right to deprive the third respondent of its right to do business merely because it becomes a competitor. What the respondent has done is only to get back its business which it was originally doing. Third respondent has also got an equal right which the petitioners are also having.
14. In the distribution of essential commodities, it is the opinion of the first respondent and revenue officials that has to be given primary importance. They alone are the best persons to decide the locality in which the shop is to be established, the agency through which the commodities will have to be distributed. They are also entitled to take into consideration the convenience of the members of the public. The apart, from the counter affidavit, it is clear that altogether there are nearly 7600 card-holders in the eight shops. Of the same, a major portion of the card holders are the staff members of the third respondent-Stores. Only in one shop, the members of the public are involved. The third respondent-Cooperative Society itself was formed for the welfare of the Madura Coats Employees. Taking into consideration all these facts, the Collector has also decided that the transfer earlier made has to be revoked, and the same has to be retransferred to the third respondent. It can only be said that he has taken into consideration the interest of the card-holders.
15. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the third respondent is in great financial difficulty and it will not be in a position to serve the members of the public. In all the counter affidavits, it has been specifically stated that even before 1995, even though the financial position was not given, third respondent was granted permission to continue the business and only because there was untimely strike by the employees, the fair price shop had to be transferred. It is also asserted in the counter affidavit that there is a duty on the part of the Government to see that the essential commodities are taken delivery of in time and the financial arrangement has also been made by the respective cooperative society, and the third respondent can easily take the stock whenever it is necessary. Further, more than 225 lakhs of rupees have been demanded as financial assistance. At any rate, it is also a matter which the respondents alone can decide, and the petitioners who are only competitors in the business, are not entitled to any relief, nor can they prevent the third respondent from doing its lawful business.
16. Learned Counsel for petitioners submitted that they were not given a chance of fair hearing, i.e., prin-ciples of natural justice have been violated. It is also contended by him that when the shop had been entrusted to them, they had a legitimate expectation that they will be allowed to continue the same and abruptly asking them to handover the shop to the third respondent and that too violating the principles of natural justice, cannot be sustained. Learned Counsel also relied on the decision reported in Selvi Travels etc. v. Union of India, Passport Officer, Tiruchirappalli etc., 1992 Writ L.R. 801 particularly paragraph 29, wherein Srinivasan, J., as he then was, said that the en masse withdrawal of recognition of the recognised travel agents is against the principles of natural justice since they were not heard and the same runs counter to legitimate expectation of the petitioners. I do not think any of these submissions can hold good in this case. The principle of legitimate expectation is also one of the branches in natural justice, and if the principle of natural justice has no application, petitioners cannot contend that they are entitled to continue as declares in the place of the third respondent. The principle of natural justice applies only in cases where an adverse order is passed having civil consequences. In this case, it is purely administrative action. The third respondent who was running a fair price shop could not do it in view of the employees; strike. Since the public should not suffer, those duties were entrusted provisionally to the petitioners. At the same time, the licence of the third respondent as fair price shop dealer also continued. After the strike was called off, and when the atmosphere in the third respondent’s shop improved, naturally, the Authorities were justified in returning back the facilities to the third respondent-stores which it was having. It is not a case where the dealership was cancelled and the petitioners were appointed as dealers. It is only a temporary arrangement. If that be the case, asking them to return that right is nothing but an administrative action for which there are no civil consequences. The question of legitimate action for which there are no civil consequences. The question of legitimate expectation also cannot arise, for, the petitioners very well know that their right to continue is only provisional i.e., till the atmosphere of the third respondent–Stores improves. The citation which learned Counsel relied on was a case where adverse civil conse-quences followed and even the very livelihood was affected. Their licenses were also cancelled without hearing them. Before withdrawing the recognition, the Authority did not hear them, which was in the nature of a quasi-judicial function. One more circumstances which goes against the petitioner is that the respondents 1 to 2 provisionally entrusted the busi-ness of third respondent to the petitioners. Being an entrustment, naturally the petitioners are bound to return when the Authorities who entrusted the same recalled it. The question of hearing will never arise in such cases.
17. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. W.M.P. Nos. 12679, 13813 and 18166 of 1997 are also dismissed.