IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 408 of 2010 (M/S) Matloob S/O Sri Nazim Village Pradhan, Gram Sabha Khelpur, Nasrallapur Block Bhagwanpur, Tehsil Roorkee, District Haridwar. …… Petitioner. Versus 1. Commissioner, Garhwal Mandal, Pauri, Camp Dehradun. 2. Sub Divisional Magistrate, Roorkee, District Haridwar. 3. Matloob S/O Sri Islam, R/O Village Khelpur Nasrallapur Block Bhagwanpur, Tehsil Roorkee, District Haridwar. … Respondents. Mr. Mohd. Safdar, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. K.P.Upadhyay, learned Additional C.S.C. for the respondents No. 1 &2. Mr. M.S.Tyagi, Advocate, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3. Date March 29, 2010. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 25-2-2010 (Annexure-3 to the petition) passed by respondent no.1, whereby the appeal filed by respondent no. 3 was admitted for hearing and the operation of the order dated 24-2-2010 passed by the Up Ziladhikari Roorkee had been stayed till 30-3- 2010. Brief facts, giving rise to the present writ petition, are that an appeal has been filed by respondent no. 3 before the Commissioner, Garhwal Division, Pauri, Camp Dehradun against the order dated 24-2-2010 passed by Up Ziladhikari Roorkee, whereby the agreement of fair-price shop of the respondent no. 3 was suspended. After hearing the appellant, the learned Commissioner has granted stay order till 30-3-2010. 2 Learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 has contended that the petitioner is the village Pradhan and he has no locus to file the present writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that a revision has been filed by the respondent no.3, while under the Government Orders only appeal lies. By a perusal of the impugned order, it reveals that the statement of the learned counsel for the respondent no. 3, that the revision has been converted into appeal and it was registered as an appeal, appears to be correct. If the petitioner has any grievance, he may file stay vacation application before the learned Commissioner, Garhwal Division and the respondent no. 3 has a right to raise objection regarding the locus of the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner is disputing this fact that the revision has been converted into appeal. This question may also be seen by the learned Commissioner, if raised before him, by the petitioner as to whether the revision is pending or appeal is pending. With the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of finally. All pending applications stand disposed of. ( B.S.Verma, J. ) RCP 3 4