IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 1979 of 2007 (M/S) Adharsh Rationing Dealers Welfare Society Uttaranchal Polysheet Kathgodam, District Nainital, through its President Shri Ramesh Chandra Pandey son of Shri Hari Dutt Pandey. …… Petitioner. Versus State of Uttarakhand through Secretary, Food and Supplies Dehradun and two others. … Respondents. Sri P.S.Rawat learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri K.P.Upadhyay, learned Addl. C.S.C. for the respondents-State. Date June 13, 2008. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. Sri P.S.Rawat, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K.P.Upadhyay, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. This writ petition has been filed for quashing the advertisement dated 20-9-2006 issued by respondent no.3, Annexure No. 4 to the writ petition, whereby applications were invited for allocating the fair price shops by the District Supply Officer Nainital. Brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the petitioner is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act. The society was formed for the welfare of the rationing dealers. The writ petition was filed mainly on the ground that as per Government Order No. 836 dated 20-5-2005, there is a provision to open a new ration shop and the minimum required units in respect of rural area was 4000 in a particular Gaon Sabha. When it exceeds 4000 units, a new shop can be opened and the 2 advertisement impugned was made in contravention of the Government Orders issued from time to time in this regard. On 28-2-2007, this Court passed an order in Writ Petition No. 226 of 2007 and directed the respondent No. 3-District Supply Officer Nainital to decide the representation dated 20-2- 2007 of the petitioner, which was filed before the authority concerned. The said representation was also decided by a speaking order, which has been annexed as Annexure CA-1 to the counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit, the stand taken by the respondents is that the advertisement was made to allocate the fair price shop in the vacant place. The respondent nos. 2 and 3 have stated in para no. 3-D of the counter affidavit it was stated that the writ petition was filed by the petitioner on the strength of Government Order dated 20-5-2005, which pertains to rural areas, while the shop which was advertised falls in the urban area and the G.O. dated 20-5-2005 is not applicable to the present writ petition. Reliance was placed by the State on the Government Order dated 5- 2-1993, wherein it is provided that in urban area on every 2000 units, one ration shop is to be opened and in cooperative area, 4000 units are attached to a ration shop. Thus the contention of the State is that the allocation of fair price shops in the urban area is regulated by the Government Order dated 5-2-1993 and that of the rural area by the G.O. dated 20-5-2005. The grievance of the petitioner is that the fair price shop which was advertised to be allocated is in utter violation of Government Order dated 5-2-1993. I have perused the averments made in the writ petition and the grounds mentioned therein and the counter affidavit as well as the Government Order dated 5-02-1992 (Annexure No.2 to the writ petition) and the impugned advertisement. 3 By a perusal of the impugned advertisement, it reveals that the advertisement was made only for the areas where there is no fair price shops and to fill up the vacant places in the urban area of Nainital, Haldwani, Ramnagar and Lalkuan, the advertisement was made to allocate fair price shops. The grounds raised in the writ petition are totally misconceived, because by the impugned advertisement, the respondents are not opening new shops, hence the question whether a particular fair price shop covers ration units upto 2000 units or more units is immaterial. The advertisement impugned was made in conformity with the Government Order dated 5-2-1993, which is applicable to the urban area. In the facts and circumstances of the case, in my view the writ petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. The writ petition is dismissed. Costs easy. ( B.S.Verma, J. ) RCP 4 5