said, to have given an explanation on 28.04.2023 contendingthat the stocks were stored in two rooms and the necessarystaffhad verified the stock in one room only. He further contendedthatthe inspection was carried out in his absence and there was nobody to show the second room to the inspecting staff. The R.D.O, pending further enquiry, passed an order of suspension of the fair price shop dealership of the petitioner on 15.05.2023 vide ROC.No.E/843/2023. Aggrieved by the said order of suspension,the petitioner moved this Court by way of W.P.No. 14097of2023.The petitioner raised the contention that the second roominwhichthe stock had been stored had not been inspected. Apartfromthis contention, the petitioner also raised an additionalcontentioninthe affidavit filed in I.A.No.2 of 2023 that the inspecting staff had wrongly mentioned the variation in stock, as the supplyofsortex rice to the M.P.P School, Suddulakuppam, by the petitioner,hadnot been taken into account. The learned single judge, in order to ascertain the facts, had appointed an Advocate Commissionerand on the basis of the report of the Advocate Commissionerandthe letter said to have been given by the Principal of the school, had stayed all further proceedings pursuant to the orderof theRevenue Divisional Officer dated 15.05.2023 and also directed continuation of the petitioner as dealer of the fair price shop. Subsequently,
