1. Heard the Counsel on record and perused the respective stands taken by the parties and perused the records produced before this Court.

2. This Court ordered Notice before admission on 9-5-2007 and granted interim suspension for a period of six weeks. On 19-6-2007, the following order was made :

"Counter affidavits have been filed on behalf of the official respondents as well as the 6th respondent. At the request of the learned Counsel for the petitioner, post on 26-6-2007 for Reply. So far as interim order is concerned, though it is contended by the 6th respondent that pursuant to the order of bifurcation order of the authorization was granted in his favour 2-5-2007 and basing on the same he had paid the amount on 5-5-2007 and the stocks were released in his favour for the month of May, 2007 immediately thereafter, the learned Counsel for the writ petitioner has placed before this Court the proceedings of the 4th respondent dated 23-5-2007 which shows that in compliance with the interim suspension ordered by this Court dated 9-5-2007 the appointment of the 6th respondent has been kept in abeyance until further orders and that for the month of June, 2007 the commodities were not released to the 6th respondent. The learned Counsel for the 6th respondent could not dispute the same but stated that as a matter of fact the commodities were not issued even to the writ petitioner for the month of June, 2007. Be that as it may, having regard to the fact that the Writ Petition is posed to 26-6-2007 for hearing, I deem it appropriate to direct that in the meanwhile Status Quo obtaining as on today shall be maintained with regard to be distribution of commodities for the shop in question leaving it open to the 4th respondent to get the commodities distributed by making alternative arrangements for the month of June, 2007, if not already distributed, so as to avoid any inconvenience to the card holders." On 10-9-2007, rule nisi was issued and inasmuch as W.V.M.P.No.1196/2007 was filed, the matter was adjourned and it was directed to list the matter for Final Hearing by order dated 20-9-2007. Thus is the matter is coming up for Final Hearing.

3. The brief facts which ultimately paved the way for filing of the present Writ Petition are as hereunder. Pursuant to a notification issued in the year 1984, the petitioner and several others had submitted applications for temporary appointment as Fair Price Shop Dealer for Shop No.19, now renumbered as Shop No.27. The 3rd respondent by his proceedings dated 21-4-1984 appointed the petitioner and the 6th respondent as Fair Price Shop Dealers by splitting the said shop into two. Thereafter, the said proceedings were questioned in Appeals and the issue thereof underwent chequered history of Appeals, Revisions, Writ Petitions and Writ Appeal. Ultimately the said litigation culminated in the Judgment of this Court dated 6-7-1984 in W.P.No.13887 of 1984 thereby directing that the Shop in question should be treated as a single shop without bifurcation and the consideration with respect to the said appointment shall be confined between the petitioner and the 6th respondent. The said Judgment dated 6-7-1984 became final and consequently the 1st respondent considered the inter se merits of the petitioner and the 6th respondent by proceedings dated 30-4- 1989 and appointed the petitioner as Permanent Fair Price Shop Dealer for the said shop. It is also stated that the 6th respondent again preferred W.P.No.8213/1990 against the appointment of the petitioner and the same was dismissed by Judgment dated 18-6-1990. Aggrieved by the said Judgment, the 6th preferred W.A.No.808/90 and the Division Bench of this Court by Judgment dated 12-7-1990 set-aside the Judgment of the Single Judge and directed that it is open for the authorities to renotify the same and invite applications and consider the claims thereof and pass necessary orders of appointment. It is also stated that consequently by notification dated