1. Petitioner was a card holder in a fair price depot, which was run by the 6th respondent. 6ased on a complaint of the petitioner and few other card holders, inspection of the said fair price depot was conducted and a report of the irregularities noticed, having been submitted, Deputy Commissioner, Mysore District - 3rd respondent, served on the respondent, a show cause notice. A reply having been submitted, 3rd respondent, on 20.05.2010, pending enquiry, suspended the authorisation granted to the 6lh respondent and ordered for making alternative arrangement. By an order dated 23.11.2010, 3rd respondent cancelled the authorisation issued to the 6th respondent, reeling aggrieved, Appeal No.227/2010-11 was filed, under Clause 17 of KEC (PDS) Control Order, 1992 (for short 'Control Order'), before the 2nd respondent. In the said appeal, an application filed by the petitioner and another, for impleading as additional respondents having been rejected on 17.03.2012, on the ground that the applicants are not necessary parties and the appeal can be decided on the basis of the available materials, the order, when questioned in W.P. No.10411-12/2012, was set aside on 08.01.2013 and the 2nd respondent was directed to grant opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the other applicant. The 2nd respondent by an order dated 22.06.2013 having dismissed the said appeal, 6th respondent filed before the 1st respondent, Revision Petition No.50/ECA/2013, under Clause 20 of the Control order. Revision petition having been allowed and the 3rd respondent having been directed to take necessary steps, to restore the authorisation issued under Clause 3 of the Control Order, feeling aggrieved, this writ petition was filed.

2. Sri A.V. Gangadharappa, learned advocate, firstly, contended that the Order passed by the Appellate Authority being final, is not revisable by the Government. He submitted that appellate power has been exercised by the Government, purportedly under the guise of revisional jurisdiction. Secondly, Deputy Commissioner having noticed the irregularities in distribution of commodities by the 6th respondent, had cancelled the authorisation for valid reasons and the said order having been confirmed in appeal, interference by the 1st respondent is wholly arbitrary and illegal. Thirdly, without any application of mind, revisional jurisdiction has been exercised by the 1st respondent and in the impugned order, there being no reasons, except narrating the arguments of the contesting parties, interference is called for.

3. Sri H.C Shivaramu, learned advocate, on the other hand, firstly, contended that the writ petition has been filed at the behest of another person, who is running a FDP point at Chidarahalli village and in favour of whom, alternate arrangement was made by the 3rd respondent, while passing the order dated 23.11.2010 i.e., while cancelling the authorisation issued in favour of the 6th respondent. He submitted that out of 618 ration cards allotted in favour of the 6th respondent, except the petitioner and another, none else had any grievance in the matter of distribution of the essential commodities. He contended that the petitioner has no locus standi to file this writ petition. Secondly, order dated 23.11.2010 was passed by Sri Harsh Gupta,, while he was the Deputy Commissioner of Mysore District and that Sri Harsh Gupta, in the capacity as Commissioner and Director of Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs, illegally dismissed the appeal and thereby upholding his own order, passed in the capacity of the Authorised Authority. He submitted that, since both the orders dated 20.05.2010 and 23.11.2010, in the capacity as Authorised Authority and the Appellate Authority were passed by the one and same person, acting with material impropriety and the same also suffer from bias, the 1st respondent is justified in examining the proceedings of the cases decided by the Authorised Authority and the Appellate Authority and