Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 does not allow interference in administrative appointment decisions unless there is a clear legal error.

1. The question involved in this appeal, a simple one as we see it, relating to the appointment of an authorised retail distributor under Clause.45(1) of the Kerala Rationing Order, 1966 has brought in its wake a very much larger question about the extent and scope of the jurisdiction of this Court under Art.226 of the Constitution to interfere with such appointments.

2. The appellant is a Cooperative Society, who was an aspirant for appointment as an authorised retail distributor under the above mentioned clause of the Order. He failed in his first attempt before the District Supply Officer but succeeded in his appeal before the District Collector. The Commissioner of Civil Supplies who is the revisional authority set aside the order of the Collector. That order is Ext. P2. We shall extract certain parts of that order which are pertinent.
"Apart from the above aspect, there are other unsatisfactory aspects in the case which indicate that the dist. supply officer had not enquired into certain relevant aspects. ........... When a society which (had) already (been) running four shops is an applicant for licence for a fifth shop, the above factors ought to have been considered by the District Supply Officer as well as by the District Collector .......... As it will not be proper to make a pronouncement on the rival claims of various applicants without a definite finding on the aforementioned aspects, the question of appointment of an A.R.D. for shop No. 94 is remanded to the District Supply Officer, Trichur for fresh consideration and decision ......"

3. After the matter was so remanded to the District Supply Officer, the District Supply Officer again came to the conclusion by Ext. P3 order that the Cooperative Society, the appellant before us cannot be appointed as the authorised retail distributor. There was again an appeal before the District Collector and the District Collector allowed the appeal by Ext. P4 order. We shall read the relevant part of that order as well.
"I have heard the advocates for both the parties. I have also perused the connected records. The only point for consideration is who should be preferred for appointment as authorised retail distributor in this case whether the cooperative society or V. K. Mohammed It is seen from the minutes book of the rural development cooperative society No.426 which appears to be the predecessor of the appellant society that by a resolution No. 61 dated 5-3-1961 the society had resolved to surrender shop No. 2 on account of shortage of cardholders and also on account of financial loss. I have got this matter enquired into. There is no conclusive evidence available to prove that shop No. 2 mentioned in this resolution is the present shop No. 94. It has to be remembered that from 1956 to 1964, fair price shops functioned in the state and the practice then in vogue was to distribute one edangazhi of rice per card per week to the low income group. In 1964, informal rationing was introduced and the fair price shop keepers were redesignated as authorised retail distributors. From the security register maintained in the taluk supply office, it is seen that the secretary C.S. No. 426. Kattur was the holder of F. P. Shop No. 94 from 1-8-1956. It is further seen that the A. V. Krishnan was the licensee of shop No. 94 from 8-7-1961 onwards. It is the cancellation of the licence given to this Krishnan that has caused the present vacancy. It is thus clear that shop No. 94 thereafter by A. V. Krishnan. How this happened is not known. It is probable that it was a case of surrender. Serial No.2 shown in the resolution might be the number that the society gave to this shop. I do no