1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR. <<>> :: ORDER :: M/s Shambhu & Company Vs. The State & Ors. D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (W) NO. 144/2010. Date of Order :::: 9th August 2010 PRESENT HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. TOTLA Mr. R.S. Mankad, for the appellant. <><> BY THE COURT: Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner- appellant and having perused the material placed on record, we are unable to find any reason to show interference in this intra-court appeal filed against the order dated 19.11.2008 whereby the learned Single Judge of this Court has dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner-appellant with a short order thus: “Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused all the impugned orders. I see no reason to interfere in the concurrent findings giving in the orders impugned while exercising powers under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed.” 2 Though the order aforesaid appears to be an unreasoned one but then, having considered the matter in its totality, we are satisfied that the baseless writ petition filed by the petitioner-appellant could only have been rejected summarily and the learned Single Judge has rightly done so. The petitioner-appellant, said to be an authorised dealer of kerosene, was served with the notice dated 15.12.2005 by the District Supplies Officer, Udaipur alleging violation of Clause-11 of the Authorisation on the grounds:(a) that the record was not verified by the competent authority; (b) that there had been short lifting of the allotted kerosene in the months of October 2005 and November 2005; and (c) that G.S.S., Changedi was supplied kerosene in a given day in excess of the storage capacity. The reply as submitted by the petitioner was not found satisfactory and an amount of Rs. 500/- (Rupees Five Hundred) lying in deposit was ordered to be forfeited by the District Supplies Officer. The appellant preferred an appeal that was heard and dismissed on 12.09.2006 by the Collector, Udaipur after finding admission on the part of the appellant about short lifting of kerosene and about excess supply to Changedi Centre. The appellant preferred a revision petition that was also dismissed by the Additional Commissioner, Food and Civil Supplies, Rajasthan, 3 Jaipur by the order dated 23.07.2008, again, after finding that the appellant had not been able to refute the allegations and rather there was admission on its part regarding the alleged irregularities. In view of the concurrent findings by the three authorities of the Department and with considered and detailed orders by the appellate and the revisional authorities, there was nothing for the writ Court to interfere in this matter. The orders impugned were not questioned on want of jurisdiction but the appellant wanted re-inquiry into the facts that could not have been taken up by the writ Court. For the reasons foregoing, we do not find any reason or cause to consider interference in this appeal. The appeal fails and is, therefore, dismissed. (C.M. TOTLA), J. (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J. Mohan/