' By this writ petition, order dated 23-7-1978 made by the District Magistrate, Mirpur, is challenged on the ground that it was illegally passed by the said Officer as it was in excess of his jurisdiction and that it was without lawful authority. By the impugned order, respondent No, 3 was issued a licence of dealership for distribution of wheat and sugar etc. To the people of villages, namely Chheni Thothal, Chheni Raiki, Chheni Fateh Muhammad and Mughal Garh. It was claimed by the petitioner that he also holds a licence for these villages and as such, no extra licence could be issued to respondent No, 3 as also the population of these villages has no endurance for an additional authorisation. The learned counsel put in written arguments which were submitted under the signatures of the petitioner. The main plea assailing the impugned licence is with regard to the recommendation in favour of respondent No, 3 by the District Allotment Board. According to the petitioner, this was not a valid recommendation because three persons appointed as Members of the Board did not make the recommendations, but only two of them. This being the case it could not be deemed the recommendation of the Board on basis of which the District Magistrate is empowered to issue a licence in favour of a person or a class of persons for distribution of wheat and sugar etc. To the inhabitants of a distribution area. Under clause 4(1) of the Azad J & K Wheat, Wheat Atta, Maize, Rice and Sugar Distribution Order, 1974, the District Magistrate has the authority and competence to issue an authorisation for distribution of the foodstuffs. It is provided therein that he may on recommendations of the Board issue the requisite licence. The District Allotment Board is merely a recommendatory body by which the selection of persons to be appointed as dealers may not be binding on the District Magistrate. This is not a mandatory provision and so the recommendation of two members of the Board in absence of a 3rd member may not debar the1A District Magistrate to issue a licence applied for. Thus it cannot be said that the District Magistrate had no authority to issue a licence on basis of a recommendation lacking signature of a 3rd member. The appointing authority of a dealer is that of the District Magistrate who may act on the recommendation of the District Allotment Board. The use of word 'may' fully empower the appointing authority even to ignore the recommendation of the District Allotment Board. Thus he may even dispense with the recommendation of the District Allotment Board.
Previously there had been also a dispute between the parties before this Court in which the extraordinary jurisdiction was invoked under section 44 of the Interim Constitution Act. For determination of the instant point in issue that file was also summoned for perusal. In that case the order of the Commissioner against the order of the District Magistrate under which authorization was made in favour of respondent No, 3 was impugned. A Division Bench disposed of that case holding that Commissioner had no jurisdiction to cancel the impugned licence held by respondent No,
3. The petitioner is a licenceholder for village Chheni Malkani. It was on an application moved by the villagers of that village that an authorization was issued to the petitioner for distribution of wheat and sugar etc. To the people of village Chhani Malkani.
' There were three dealers appointed for the villages Chhani Thothal Chhani Fateh Muhammad, Chhani Raiki and Mughal Garh who entered into service and as such their licences of dealership were terminated. It was thus) on the application of the inhabitants of those villages that a licence of dealership was issued to respondent No,
3. There had been a gap between the extinction of the licences of dealers of these villages and the grant of licence to respondent No, 3 for which the petitioner was distributing wheat and sugar etc. This is not known as to who was that person to allow the petitioner to make a distribution of wheat and sugar etc. To the people of the villages in question. It appears that it was without a valid authorization! That the petitioner was acting as a retail distributor. It seems to me that it was in collaboration with some official of the Civil Supply Department! That the distribution was being made by him without a valid authority. It was so why the authorization issued to the petitioner for village Malkani was not produced alongwith this writ petition. As a matter of fact it was concealed and attempted to make use of some report of a Civil Supply Official who was not competent to allow the petitioner to distribute the foodstuffs controlled by the Government to the people of a distribution area, for which a licence was validly granted to respondent No, 3.
That being so it cannot be declared that the petitioner is holding a valid licence of dealership for distribution of wheat and sugar etc. To the inhabitants of villages, namely Chhani Thothal, Chhani Fateh Muhammad, Chhani and Mughal Garh. The population of these villages was mentioned just by dropping a reference to a certain note of a Civil Supply Official but the population of village Chhani Malkani for which he is a dealer to distribute controlled items of foodstuffs was not disclosed. This is also not clear as to what strength of population is required to have a dealer of their own. The villages in question had already three dealers who left their business whiles undertaking some service and thus vacancies of dealership occurred in the villages for which respondent No, 3 was appointed as a retail distributor. There are complaints against the petitioner as well as against respondent No,
3. We are not supposed to investigate them in this petition as to see who is a right person. As a matter of fact we find that the E petitioner has not come before this Court with clean hands as he attempted to conceal his authorization form from the Court which was meant only for a village Chhani Malkani by name.
' Thus the case of the petitioner has no legs to stand which is hereby dismissed in limine.