HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 1576 of 2011 (M/S) Smt. Indira Rani Bishnoi ..… Petitioner Versus Sub Divisional Magistrate And others. ….. Respondents. Mr. Sharad Sharma, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. J.S. Bisht, counsel for petitioner. Mr. K.C. Tiwari, Brief Holder for the State. Hon’ble B.S. Verma, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 15.07.2011 (annexure no. 8 to the writ petition), issued by respondent No. 3, whereby fair price shop of the petitioner was suspended and an enquiry was contemplated against him. Learned Senior Advocate has contended that as per Clause 9 of Government Order dated 15.10.2005, only Up Zila Adhikari is the competent person to pass order of cancellation of the agreement. Clause 9 of said Government Order, reads as under:- “(9) fdlh nqdkunkj }kjk vuqlwfpr oLrqvksa ds mBku ,oa forj.k esa vfu;ferrk ,oa xM+cM+h fd;s tkus dh f’kdk;r izkIr gksus ij vFkok vU; izdkj ls ,slh tkudkjh feyus ij bldh tkWp xzke&iapk;r dh iz’kklfud 2 lfefr }kjk dh tk;sxhA tkap vk[;k rFkk leLr rF; xzke lHkk dh [kqyh cSBd esa j[ks tk;saxs ftu ij fopkj&foe’kZ ds ckn cSBd esa fu.kZ; fy;k tk;sxkA xzke lHkk ds fu.kZ; ds vuqlkj xzke&iapk;r fodkl vf/kdkjh }kjk xzkeh.k {ks= ds lEcU/k esa miftykf/kdkjh ,oa 'kgjh {ks= esa ftykf/kdkjh dks izdj.k izLrqr fd;k tk;sxkA” Learned Brief Holder for the State, drew attention of this Court to Clause 12 of the above mentioned Government Order, which is being reproduced as under:- “(12)xzke lHkk ds vfrfjDr jk’ku ds nqdkunkj ds dk;ksaZ dh tkap ftykf/kdkjh] vij ftykf/kdkjh] ftykiwfrZ vf/kdkjh rFkk mi ftykf/kdkjh }kjk Loizsj.kk vFkok f’kdk;r vkfn feyus ij dh tk ldrh gS rFkk xEHkhj vfu;ferrk dh fLFkfr esa ;s vf/kdkjh Hkh jk’ku dh nqdkuksa ds fuyEcu vFkok fujLrhdj.k ds vkns’k ns ldrs gS vkSj ,sls vkns’k xzke lHkk rFkk nqdkunkj ij ck/;dkjh gksaxsA” As per above quoted clause right has been given to the Collector, Additional Collector, District Supply Officer and Up Zila Adhikari to take action suo motu on the complaint made by some person and may pass order of suspension and cancellation of agreement. Therefore, the impugned order doesn’t appear to be passed without jurisdiction. 3 Clause 14 of the Government Order, provides as under:- “(14) jk’ku dh nqdkuksa ds fuyEcu@fuj Lr hdj .k ds vkns’k ds fo:) vihy lEcfU/kr e.Myk;qDr ds le{k izLrqr dh tk;sxhA bu ekeyksa esa f}rh; vihy dh O;oLFkk ugha gksxhA ;fn xzke lHkk nqdku fujLrhdj.k dk izLrko djrh gS rks lkFk gh mls ubZ nqdku dh fu;qfDr ds lEcU/k esa Hkh mijksDr izfdz;k ds vuqlkj izLrko djuk gksxk] rkfd forj.k ds dk;Z esa O;o/kku u gksA ” As per Clause 14 of said Government Order dated 15.10.2005, quoted above, an appeal can be preferred before the concerned Commissioner. Therefore, on the ground of alternative remedy available, I am not inclined to entertain the writ petition. The writ petition is dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy of appeal. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to prefer an appeal before the concerned Commissioner. If such appeal is preferred by the petitioner the same shall be decided as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of three months. (B.S. Verma, J.) 02.08.2011 S 4