1. By way of this petition under Art.226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has approached this Court, initially, praying for setting aside the order dated 21st December, 2005 passed by the respondent No.1, wherein the order dated 16th November 2005 passed by the respondent No.2 allotting fair price shop in favour of the petitioner was cancelled. The petitioner, thereafter, amended the petition by which the Government Resolution dated 4th February 2006, which came into force pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court in the said petition, came to be challenged. However, learned advocate Mr. H. R. Prajapati for the petitioner, at the time of hearing, does not press the amended prayers.

2. The following facts are necessary so as to understand the controversy of the present case:
2.1. It is the case of the petitioner that the State Government has introduced the Public Distribution System for the purpose of providing essential articles at subsidized rates to the poor and downtrodden class of the society and the said system was time - to - time being modified and amended for its effective and smooth operation. Lastly, the State Government, by resolution dated 2nd August 2004, fixed the criteria for the purpose of allotting fair price shops.
2.2. On 1st December 2004, a public advertisement was issued inviting, inter alia, applications for opening fair price shop at village : Ilol. Apropose to the said advertisement, the petitioner submitted a form dated 15th December 2004 as per the prescribed Schedule - II.
2.3. It is the case of the petitioner that in all, six candidates including the petitioner submitted their applications for allotting fair price shop at village : Ilol. It is the case of the petitioner that after having received the applications, the Mamlatdar and Deputy Mamlatdar, Himmatnagar carried out certain inquiries to verify the facts those are disclosed in the applications. It is further the case of the petitioner that certain documents, those were asked by the competent officer, during the course of inquiry, submitted with the forwarding letter dated 20th December ,2004.
2.4. The Mamlatdar, Himmatnagar, after having carried out the inquiry and considered the material on record of all the applicants, submitted its report on 19th January 2005 before the Taluka Civil Supply and Consumers Affairs Advisory Committee, who, in turn, after completing all the formalities, forwarded the proposal to the District Civil Supply and Consumers Affairs Advisory Committee with suitable recommendations. Accordingly, the District Committee in its meeting held on 30th March ,2005 considered the case of those applicants in view of the Government Resolution and thereafter, prepared a list of three candidates and forwarded it to the respondent No.2 with their recommendations.
2.5. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent No.3 has raised objections against the petitioner being placed at Serial No.1 and therefore, the Mamlatdar had carried out further investigation.
2.6. The concerned Mamlatdar, after considering the material and further completing the investigation, submitted its report dated 27th May 2005 to the respondent No.2. After receipt of the said report, the respondent No.2 issued notices to all the concerned parties inviting objections and scheduled hearing on 15th September, 2005. The respondent No.2, after having considered the submissions of the concerned parties and having considered the material produced on record, vide its order dated 16th November, 2005, allotted fair price shop in favour of the petitioner.
2.7. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the aforesaid, the respondents Nos.3 and 4 have preferred appeal before the respondent No.1.
2.8. The petitioner received one letter dated 5th December, 2005 and has learnt about the appeal was filed before the respondent No.1. Accordingly, the petitioner appeared on 12th December, 2005 before the respondent No.1 and submitted its reply. According to the petit