By the Court.—Heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

2. The petitioner is a villager of the village where the respondent No. 4 is a fair price shop dealer. He has filed this writ petition with the prayer that his representation dated 1.5.2014 with regard to the allotment of the fair price shop to the respondent No. 4 be decided.

3. It is not the grievance of the petitioner that he is not being supplied the essential commodities to which he is entitled to. The right of a card holder is limited to the extent that he should get the requisite essential commodities as per his allotment. In the absence of there being any grievance with regard to the same, the representation for withdrawing the fair price shop dealership of the respondent No. 4 does not deserve to be decided.

4. Even otherwise, the petitioner has not been able to place any provision of law under which the representation of a kind, which has been filed by him, is required to be decided by any of the respondents. A writ of mandamus is issued only when an authority is obliged under law to perform a duty, which it is not performing. In the present case, there is no such provision of law under which the representation of the petitioner is required to be decided. As such, the prayer made in this petition does not deserve to be granted.

5. This writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.

——————