IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION NO. 838 OF 2009 (MS) Sheeshpal ………Petitioner. Versus State of Uttarakhand and others. …….Respondents. Mr. B.B. Sharma, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. K.P. Upadhyay, Addl. Chief Standing Counsel for State of Uttarakhand. 20th November, 2009 Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. The petitioner has a fair-price shop at Manglore, Roorkee, District Haridwar. On inspection made in the shop in the year, 2005, it was found that 128 quintals of wheat was less in the Stock. Consequently vide order dated 16.8.2005 of the District Supply Officer, Haridwar/respondent no. 2, the fair-price shop licence of the petitioner was suspended. Against this order of the District Supply Officer, Haridwar, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Garhwal Mandal Pauri, which was finally rejected vide order dated 19.5.2009. After going through all the available material on record, the Commissioner came to the conclusion that it was clear that at the time of inspection, 128 quintals of wheat, which is a huge quantity, was found missing in the stock of the petitioner and there is nothing on record to justifying this shortage. Consequently, the Commissioner has also dismissed the appeal of the petitioner. These two orders have been challenged by the petitioner in this writ petition. Heard Mr. B.B. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. K.P. Upadhyay, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for State of Uttarakhand. 2 Perused the documents available on record including the impugned order dated 16.8.2005 passed by the D.S.O., Haridwar as well as order dated 19.5.2009 passed by the Commissioner, Garhwal Mandal, Pauri. This Court finds no anomaly in the both the orders as both the orders have been passed after examining all the available documents, in which the authorities are of the view that the petitioner has violated the condition of the licence given to him and consequently under the provisions of law, licence of the petitioner has been suspended. This Court finds no ground for interference in the said impugned orders and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. However, since the license of the petitioner is suspended for a long period and the inquiry in this matter is going on, the authorities are hereby directed to complete the inquiry against the petitioner and take suitable action as per the inquiry within a period of six weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before the concerned authorities. With the above observations, writ petition is disposed of. A certified copy of this order shall be given to Mr. K.P. Upadhyay, Addl. Chief Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand so that he may apprise the concerned authorities about this order. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 20.11.2009 Rathour