IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 43 of 2008 Date of decision: 10.1.2008. Daleep Singh … Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. … Respondents Coram : The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the Petitioner: Mr. B.C. Negi and Mr. Lovneesh Kanwar, Advocates. For the respondents: Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General, with Mr. R.M. Bisht, Deputy Advocate General. Per Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral): The only ground raised in this petition is whether an Inspector is authorized to inspect the premises without specific authorization of the Director in terms of Clause 19 of the Himachal Pradesh Specified Articles (Regulation of Distribution) Order, 2003. The Clause 19 of the aforesaid order empowers certain officers to enter and inspect premises, require information, check accounts and seizes article etc. Clause 19(1) which is relevant for our purpose reads as follows:- “19(1) The Director or Deputy Commissioner or the Controller or any Magistrate or any Officer of the Food, Civil Supplies & Consumer Affairs Deportment not below 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 the rank of Inspector or any other Officer, if specifically authorized by the Director in this behalf, within his jurisdiction, may, in order to secure the compliance of this order or to satisfy himself that this order has been complied with and with such assistance as deems fit, may, ---“ The contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that the words “specifically authorized by the Director in this behalf” must be read with each and every officer named in this clause. In case this argument of the petitioner is accepted then even the Deputy Commissioner or the Controller or any Magistrate will have to be authorized first by the Director and then only will be empowered to enter and inspect the premises. A perusal of the clause in our opinion does not support this interpretation. The only meaningful interpretation and the only logical conclusion we can arrive at is to hold that the words “specifically authorized by the Director in this behalf” have to be read only with the words “or any other officer” preceding them. It is only when an officer below the rank of Inspector or some other officer not mentioned in Clause 19(1) is to be empowered that the Director must specifically authorize such officers. The State while framing the order has empowered certain officers to inspect the premises. These officers are not required to be further authorized by the Director. The specific authorization by the Director is only in respect of the officers not named in Clause 19. We, therefore, find no merit in the writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed. 3 CMP No. 55 of 2008: In view of the orders passed in the main petition, this application has become infructuous and is disposed of accordingly. ( Deepak Gupta ), Judge. ( V.K. Ahuja ), January 10, 2008 Judge (BSS) 4