ORDER 1. This writ appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 22.11.2010 passed by learned Single Judge, whereby, writ petition No.4339/2009 filed by respondent No.1, has been allowed. 2. Shri Sushobhit Singh, learned counsel for the appellants submits that respondent No.1 filed the aforesaid writ petition against order dated 15.06.2009 passed by Collector, Janjgir-Champa (Annexure-PI1) and prayed for quashing of the order of the Collector so far as it relates to dismissal of the petitioner, respondent No.1 herein, from the Fair Price Shop and order of recovery regarding financial losses and also quashing the impugned order dated 15.06.2009 regarding initiation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner/respondent No.1. However, by the impugned order, the learned Single Judge has not only allowed the petitioner's writ petition, but also quashed the order dated 15.06.2009 (Annexure P/1) passed by Collector, Janjgir-Champa and restored the order dated 27.04.2009 (Annexure-P/2) passed by Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Pamgarh, District Janjgir-Champa and further imposed cost of Rs.5,000/- payable by respondents No.3 & 4 to the petitioner. From perusal of relief clause in the writ petition, it would be evident that the petitioner had prayed for quashing of the impugned order dated 15.06.2009 (Annexure-P11), whereby the appellant/society was directed to remove respondent No.1 from services of the society, recover the financial losses suffered by the Fair Price Shop from Ishwar Prasad and if necessary, criminal proceedings be initiated against him. However, while allowing the writ petition, entire order of the Collector has been quashed and the order of Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) (Anpexure-P/2), whereby allotment of the Fair Price Shop to the Society has been suspended until further orders, has been also restored. From bare pursuant of the pleadings in the writ petition and the relief claimed by the petitioner, it would be evident that there was no issue before learned Single Judge regarding suspension of allotment of Fair Price Shop in favour of the appellant/Society and therefore, learned Single Judge was not justified in quashing the entire order of the Collector and imposing cost of Rs.5,000/- on appellant/ Society. 3. Shri Sumesh Baiaj, learned Govt. Advocate as well as Ms. 3. Shri Sumesh Baiaj, learned Govt. Advocate as well as Ms. Sharmila Singhai, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 submit that in the writ petition, the petitioner had only challenged the direction of the Collector to the appellant/Society to remove the petitioner from the services of the Society, to effect recovery of losses suffered by the Society from him and direction to initiate criminal proceedings if necessary, against petitioner Ishwar Prasad and revocation of suspension of allotment of Fair Price Shop by the Collector was not challenged. They further submit that they have no objection if the writ appeal preferred by appellant/respondent No.1 is allowed and the order of the Collector (AnnexlIre-P/1) is quashed to the extent the petitioner has claimed the relief in the petition. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the pleadings in the writ petition, order passed by Sub Divisional Officer (Annexure-P/2) and order passed by Collector (Annxure-P/1). 5. From perusal of the pleadings in the writ petition, particularly the relief claimed by the petitioner in paragraph 10 of the writ petition, it is seen that the petitioner was aggrieved by the order of the Collector (Annxure-P/1) to the extent of his dismissal from the Fair Price Shop and order of recovery for the financial losses suffered by the appellant/Society and also from the direction to initiate criminal proceedings against the petitioner. There is no prayer by the petitioner to quash the entire order of the Collector and restore the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer whereby allotment of Fair Price Shop to the appellant/Society has been suspended until further orders. Therefore, in our considered opinion, learned Single Judge was not justified in interfering with that part of the order of the --Collector, which was never challenged by the petitioner. 6. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. Modifying the impugned order, the order dated 15.06.2009 (Annexure-P/1) passed by Collector, Janjgir Champa, whereby, the appellant/Society has been directed to remove respondent No.1 Ishwar Prasad from the post of Salesman with immediate effect and further direction to recover the financial losses suffered by the Society from him and if necessary, criminal proceedings be initiated against him is hereby quashed. Imposition of cost of Rs.5,000/- payable to Ishwar Prasad-respondent No.1 by appellants herein is also set aside. No order as to cost. Appeal Partly Allowed.