HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 2325 of 2025 (M/S) Aashma Khatoon ….....Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and Others ….….Respondents Present:- Mr. Harendra Belwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Suyash Pant, Standing Counsel for the State. JUDGMENT Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) It is the claim of the petitioner that she had submitted an online application form on 15.06.2025 for allotment of Fair Price Shop in Harbanshwala, District Dehradun pursuant to the advertisement dated 05.05.2025, issued by the respondent no.3/District Supply Officer, Dehradun. On 27.07.2025, according to the petitioner, in the official website, it was revealed that the Fair Price Shop has been allotted to the petitioner, but next day, her name was removed from the website. Therefore, the petitioner challenges the action of the respondents seeking directions that the Fair Prince Shop, Harbanshwala, District Dehradun, be allotted to the petitioner. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had applied for the allotment of Fair Price Shop at Harbanshwala, District Dehradun. In fact on 27.07.2025, in the official website, it was so revealed that shop has been allotted to the petitioner, but the next day, the name of the petitioner was removed from the official website. Reference has been made to Annexure No.3 to refer that this is the official website of the respondent no.3/District Supply Officer, Dehradun. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel submits that the Fair Price Shop has never been allotted to the petitioner; there 2 were two other applicants, who also applied for the allotment of the Fair Price Shop, but according to him, the shop was allotted to Smt. Sonali Pal, who has higher qualification. He has tendered the instructions received by him. Let it be taken on record. 5. He also submits that in the official website of respondent no.3/The District Supply Officer, Dehradun, it was never notified that the petitioner has been allotted any Fair Price Shop; Annexure No.3 is not the extract of the official website. Instead, it is some private website in the name of Avikal Uttarakhand. 6. The petitioner has not placed any document to reveal that the Fair Price Shop at Harbanshwala, District Dehradun, was ever allotted to the petitioner. Annexure No.3 to the writ petition has been claimed to be the official website of the respondent no.3/District Supply Officer, Dehradun, which it is not. It is a private website, which is in the name of Avikal Uttarakhand, perhaps some news website. Based on it, it cannot be said that the decision taken earlier for allotment of the Fair Price Shop at Harbanshwala, Dehradun, has ever been changed. It is categorical stand of the respondents that the petitioner was never allotted the Fair Price Shop at Harbanshwala, Dehradun. She was found eligible for the allotment of the Fair Price Shop, along with two other candidates, but Smt. Sonali Pal, was allotted the shop, as she was graduate and higher in qualification than other two candidates. 7. Having considered, this Court does not see any reason to make any interference. Accordingly, the petition deserves to be dismissed at the stage of admission itself. 8. The writ petition is dismissed in limine. (Ravindra Maithani, J) 05.08.2025 Ravi Bisht