HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No.1213 of 2025 Rewadhar Brijwasi and others ...Petitioners Versus State of Uttarakhand and others ….Respondents Present: Mr. D.S. Mehta, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. N.S. Pundir, D.A.G. for the State/respondent nos. 1, 3,5 6, 6, 7, 8 & 9. Mr. Atul Bhatt, Advocate for the respondent nos. 2 and 4. Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J.(Oral) By means of instant petition, the petitioners have sought the following reliefs:- “(i) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent Authorities not to install the EPOS System (hardware, point of sale software and payment processing) in fare price shops without providing proper training to the fare price shop holders or till June 2025 in the State of Uttarakhand. (ii) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondent authorities to provide the Food Grains to the fair price shop holders after weighing through Dharmkata installing in every godown of the Department and; (iii) To issue any other writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondent authorities to pay the profits and cost of the transportation of food grains for the Seven months (corona period) and other profits which has been not paid to the Petitioners/Fair price shop dealers of the State of Uttarakhand. (iv) To pass any other order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. (v) To Award the cost of the petition.” 2 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the respondents authorities are installing EPOS System in fair price shop without providing training. He would also submit that at every godown there should be a Dharamkanta so as to supply food grains to the individual shop. In addition to it, it is argued that the profit and cost of the transportation of food grains for seven months Corona period and other benefits which has not been paid to the petitioners are also required to be paid. 4. Learned State counsel was required to get instructions. He would submit that EPOS Systems are already installed. 5. With regard to the weighing machine at each godown, learned State counsel gives a statement that electronic weighing machines are being placed at each godown based on requirement. Insofar as, prayer no.3 is concerned, learned State counsel would submit that these are issues which are under consideration. Budget has been received and this issue shall be addressed promptly. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners have made various representations to the respondents authorities and that have not been addressed to. The last representation was given by the petitioner on 05.08.2024. He seeks liberty to file fresh representation with details, with the request that the respondent no.5 may be directed to take a decision on it at the earliest. 3 7. Learned State counsel would submit that if such a representation is given to the respondent no.5, a decision on it may be taken within a period of one month. 8. The Court takes on record the statement made by the learned State counsel. 9. The writ petition is disposed of with the liberty to the petitioners to make a fresh representation to the respondent no.5 within a period of one week from today with a further direction to the respondent no.5 to decide such representation within a period of four weeks. (Ravindra Maithani, J.) 14.05.2025 Jitendra