Anjani Kumar Mishra, J.:— The present Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, interalia, praying for quashing the order dated 20.6.2013 passed by the respondent no.3 whereby the Licence of the respondent no. 4 in respect of Fair Price Shop in question has been restored subject to confiscation of Rs. 2000/- from the security deposit made by the respondent no.4. It appears that the respondent no.4 was having Licence in respect of the Fair Price Shop in question. On a complaint made against the respondent no.4, the Licence of the respondent no.4 in respect of the Fair Price Shop in question was suspended by the order dated 21.1.2013. The respondent no.4 was required to submit his Explanation with evidence in regard to the irregularities allegedly committed by him in respect of the Fair Price Shop in question within a week of the receipt of the said order dated 21.1.2013. The petitioner claims himself to be complainant against the respondent no.4. The respondent no.4 submitted his Explanation in response to the said order dated 21.1.2013. The respondent no.3 considered the Written Explanation submitted by the respondent no.4 and passed the impugned order dated 20.6.2013. The respondent no.3 in the said order concluded that the Explanation submitted by the respondent no.4 was partially satisfactory, and, therefore, the respondent no.3 directed for confiscation of Rs. 2000/- from the security deposit of the respondent no.4, and the Licence of the respondent no.4 in respect of the Fair Price Shop in question was restored. The petitioner has, thereupon, filed the present Writ Petition seeking the reliefs, as mentioned above. We have heard Shri Manoj Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 1 to 3 and Shri U.K. Pushkar, learned counsel for the caveator-respondent no.4. From the narration of the facts above, it is evident that the petitioner was merely a complainant, and on the basis of the complaint made by the petitioner, the respondent no.3 by the order dated 21.1.2013 suspended the Licence of the respondent no.4 in respect of the Fair Price Shop in question and called for explanation of the respondent no.4 in regard to the irregularities allegedly committed by him. After considering the Written Explanation submitted by the respondent no.4, the respondent no.3 passed the impugned order dated 20.6.2013 whereby Rs. After considering the Written Explanation submitted by the respondent no.4, the respondent no.3 passed the impugned order dated 20.6.2013 whereby Rs. 2000/- was directed to be confiscated from the security deposit of the respondent no.4, and the Licence of the respondent no.4 was directed to be restored. Thus, on the basis of the complaint made by the petitioner, suitable action has already been taken by the authority concerned against the respondent no.4 while restoring the Licence of the respondent no.4 in respect of the Fair Price Shop in question. In the circumstances, the petitioner cannot raise any grievance in regard to the order dated 20.6.2013, nor can any of the reliefs claimed by the petitioner in the Writ Petition be granted. The Writ Petition filed by the petitioner is misconceived, and the same is liable to be dismissed. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. _____________