IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 1036 of 2008 (M/S) Khursheed Ahmed S/O Sri Khalil, R/O Village Bedpur, Post Office-Piran Kaliyar, Block and Tehsil Roorkee, District Haridwar. …… Petitioner. Versus Commissioner, Garhwal Mandal Camp at Dehradun and three others. … Respondents. Sri Parikshit Saini, learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri K.P.Upadhyay, learned Addl. C.S.C. for the State-respondent nos. 1 to 3. Sri Manish Arora, learned counsel for the respondent no.4. Date June 26, 2008. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. Sri Parikshit Sainit, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri K.P.Upadhyay, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondent nos. 1 to 3 and Sri Manish Arora, learned counsel for the respondent no.4. Learned counsel for the respondents have submitted that the writ petition may be disposed of finally today itself at the admission stage without inviting counter affidavit from the respondents. This writ petition has been filed for issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the ex parte order dated 5-6-2008 passed by the respondent no. 1-Commissioner Garhwal Division, whereby the operation of the order dated 26.5.2008 was stayed. The writ petition has been filed on the ground that the petitioner filed a caveat against the order-dated 26.5.2008 passed by the Up Zila Adhikari Roorkee (Annexure No.4). By the order dated 26-5-2008, the suspension of the agreement bond was revoked by 2 imposing a fine of Rs. 1,000/- against the petitioner and with a warning to be careful in future. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the respondent no. 4 has no concern with the matter and the appeal preferred at the instance of the respondent no.4 before the learned Commissioner Garhwal Division was not maintainable. She is the Pradhan of the village and she preferred an appeal before the learned Commissioner. Her husband was one of complainants with some other persons of the village against the petitioner and on the basis of the complaint made by them, proceedings were initiated for suspension of the agreement. Since by order dated 26.5.2008 passed by the Up Ziladhikari Roorkee, order of suspension has been revoked, which gave a right to file caveat petition to the petitioner, and the caveat was filed before the Commissioner, therefore, the petitioner ought to have been heard before passing the interim order in the matter. In reply thereto, the learned counsel for the respondent no. 4 has submitted that in the proceedings, she was not shown as a party. The caveat was filed by the petitioner before the Commissioner Garhwal Division wherein the husband of the respondent no.4 and Irfan, who were complainants along with others against the petitioner, were mentioned as opposite parties in the caveat petition. Therefore, the order dated 5-6-2008 was rightly passed by the respondent no.1. This fact is not disputed that the caveat petition was filed by the petitioner before the Commissioner, certified copy of which has been annexed as Annexure No. 5 to the writ petition. In the caveat petition, it was stated in paragraph no. 4 “that the SDM Rooree after hearing the caveator passed an order on 26.5.2008 set aside the order dated 19.3.2008 and restored the fair price shop vide order dated 26.5.2008.” It is also not disputed that the appeal has been filed by the respondent no.4 against the order dated 26-5- 2008 passed by Up Ziladhikari Roorkee. In such circumstances, it 3 was incumbent upon the Commissioner to have heard the petitioner before passing the ex parte interim order dated 5-6-2008 while admitting the appeal for hearing. In the facts and circumstances of the case, referred to above, the ex parte interim order dated 5-6-2008 passed by respondent no. 1 shall be kept in abeyance till the disposal of the stay application. The respondent no. 1 is directed to dispose of the stay application on merits after hearing both the parties. The appeal shall also be heard and decided expeditiously as far as possible by the respondent no.1. So far as the maintainability of the appeal is concerned, the petitioner may raise objection before the learned Commissioner in the appeal. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of finally. All pending applications stand disposed of. ( B.S.Verma, J. ) RCP 4 5