JUDGMENT : V.K. Bist, J. Present petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the impugned order dated 29.06.2016 passed by the respondent no. 3. 2. In brief, the case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is a permanent resident of Village & Post Bhjuwa Nagla, Tehsil Bajpur, District Udham Singh Nagar and after complying the due process of law, the District Supply Officer, Udham Singh Nagar had issued the license of Fair Price Shop on 16.10.2007 in favour of the petitioner. Prior to that the mother of the petitioner was the dealer of the shop of the petitioner and even before 1976 the father of the petitioner was running the said Fair Price Shop. In the month of April, 2015 the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Bajpur, District Udham Singh Nagar came into the locality and asked with regard to any complaint of the villagers against the petitioner and in fact 182 ration card holders had submitted the representation before the S.D.M. that there is no complaint with regard to the fair price shop allotted in the name of the petitioner and if any complaint has been made that is absolutely frivolous and being politically motivate. Thereafter, on 22.04.2015, an order dated 20.04.2015 of the District Supply Officer, Udham Singh Nagar was received to the petitioner, whereby fair price shop of the petitioner was suspended mentioning therein that there were certain irregularities. 3. The aforesaid order of the District Supply Officer was challenged before this Hon’ble Court and on 29.10.2015 this Court expedited the enquiry proceedings. Thereafter when the enquiry was conducted, the fair price shop of the petitioner was restored vide order dated 08.04.2016. On 29.06.2016, the District Supply Officer, Udham Singh Nagar again suspended the fair price shop of the petitioner. The said exercise was initiated at the behest of the beneficiaries i.e. the other shop and his associates inasmuch as, if the shop of the petitioner is suspended the ration card of the petitioner is attached to the said shop. Thereafter, on 29.06.2016 the petitioner made a representation before the District Supply Officer, Udham Singh Nagar, mentioning that he was critically ill and was under treatment, therefore, he was not personally present when the inspection was made and the suspension order dated 29.06.2016 be recalled. Hence, this petition. 4. Thereafter, on 29.06.2016 the petitioner made a representation before the District Supply Officer, Udham Singh Nagar, mentioning that he was critically ill and was under treatment, therefore, he was not personally present when the inspection was made and the suspension order dated 29.06.2016 be recalled. Hence, this petition. 4. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that once the license was restored by the District Supply Officer on 08.04.2016, there was no justification for suspending the same again after a period of two months. He submitted that the order passed by the District Supply Officer is totally arbitrary and illegal. 5. Learned Brief Holder appearing for the State submits that the writ petition is not maintainable, as the petitioner has an alternative remedy to file an appeal before the Commissioner. 6. I have considered the submission made by learned counsel for the parties. 7. There is a remedy available under the Government Order, which provides for appeal before the Commissioner. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to file an appeal before the Commissioner, against the order dated 29.06.2016. In case, such appeal is filed within a period of two weeks from today, the Commissioner is requested to decide the same, expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months.