1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 1184 OF 2010. Eknath Pandurang Dighole -: VERSUS :- The State of Maharashtra and others. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : AUGUST 04, 2010. Heard Shri N.D. Khamborkar, learned Counsel for petitioner and learned A.G.P. for respondent nos. 1 to 3. Shri Khamborkar, learned Counsel states that after noticing rival contentions and without recording any finding about correctness of either, an adverse order has been passed by the District Supply Officer against the petitioner. This unreasoned order has been maintained in appeal by respondent no.2 and thereafter in revision by the respondent no.1. According to the learned A.G.P. appearing for respondent nos. 1 to 3, the order shows proper application of mind. I have perused the orders passed by the District Supply Officer. Perusal of the said order reveals that in the beginning the report of Supply Inspector noticing certain lacunae is mentioned. Then a show cause notice issued in 2 pursuance thereof and reply to that show cause notice is mentioned. Thereafter, District Supply Officer mentions that he has considered the report of Supply Inspector and the reply, as also the statement given by the card holders and passed the order. The lacunae noticed are, though the rate board was provided it was not filled in. The quota board was not displayed, Shop was not being kept open as required by Rules. There are such total 8 lacunae pointed out. Reply of petitioner is, the rate board is filled in; the quota board was displayed and shop always remained open. He has further stated that it was kept closed only when stocks were not available. Thus against each lacunae there is a reply of total denial. In this situation, it is apparent that the District Supply Officer has accepted the report of the Supply Inspector which is based on personal inspection and verification. I am therefore of the view that there is no wrong in the application of mind by the said Authority. Writ Petition is therefore, dismissed. No costs. JUDGE Rgd.