JUDGMENT Magrey, J. (Oral). - By this appeal, filed under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent, the Appellant has challenged the validity of final Order dated 30th of June, 2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in OWP No. 1403/2017 filed by the Appellant/ Writ Petitioner, whereby the said Writ Petition stands dismissed. Mr Mir Suhail, the learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of the Appellant, submitted that the Writ Court has not considered the matter in its true and correct perspective and has passed the Order impugned without appreciating the facts of the case. It is contended that the Writ Court has also not considered the fact that the license issued in favour of the Respondent No.5 is void ab initio inasmuch as he was not eligible to run a Fair Price Shop on the ground of having already availed the loan facility under JKSES and that the 'No Demand Certificate' (NDC) issued in his favour was cancelled by the Department. 2. Mr Sheikh Feroz Ahmad, the learned Deputy Advocate General, representing the Respondents, while supporting the impugned Order passed by the Writ Court, submitted that the 'No Demand Certificate' (NDC) that was earlier cancelled by the concerned Department has been, later on, issued in favour of the Respondent No.5 by the same Department. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings on record and have considered the matter. We have also gone through the impugned Order passed by the learned Single Judge. The main and primary contention of the Appellant/ Writ Petitioner, on the basis of which the Writ Petition was filed, has reference to the Fair Price Shop License issued in favour of the Respondent No.5 being in violation of the Government Order No. 127-FCS&CA dated 4th of August, 2016 inasmuch as the 'No Demand Certificate' (NDC) issued in favour of Respondent No.5 had been cancelled by the Assistant Director, Employment & Counselling, Anantnag, in view of he having obtained the loan facility under JKSES, thereby rendering him ineligible to run a Fair Price Shop. This contention, however, was rebutted by the Respondents by making the statement before the Court that the 'No Demand Certificate' (NDC) in favour of the Respondent No.5 which was earlier cancelled, was, later on, issued in his favour, as such, the said ground was not available to the Appellant qua the eligibility of the Respondent No.5 for issuance of Fair Price Shop License. The Government Order dated 4th of August, 2016, as rightly pointed out by the learned Single Judge, does not provide any such criteria/ condition either as would render the Respondent No.5 ineligible to run the Fair Price Shop. 3. From a plain reading of the Order impugned passed by the learned Single Judge in the context of the above facts and circumstances of the instant case, we are of the considered view that the said Order is lucid and clear. The Writ Court has not only appreciated all the grounds urged by the Appellant in the Writ Petition, but has also rendered clear and accurate findings with regard to each and every ground pressed into service by the Appellant in tune with the mandate of law governing the subject. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and going through the pleadings on record, it can be safely said that the impugned Order has taken care of all the aspects of the matter in detail and that no such ground/ material has been placed before us in this appeal so as to reverse the findings returned by the learned Single Judge and take a view contrary to the one taken in the impugned Order. 4. In the above background, we find no merit in this appeal which is, accordingly, dismissed in limine along with the connected CM.