1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE CIVIL JURISDICTION REVIEW PETITION NO. 122 OF 2004 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 3208 OF 2004 Kaushik Ashok Patil. ...... ..... Petitioner. Versus District Supply Officer, Jawhar Head Office, Dist. Thane & Ors. ..... .... Respondents. None for the Petitioner. Mr. R. M. Patne, AGP for the Respondents. CORAM : BILAL NAZKI and S. A. BOBDE, JJ. DATED : 7TH MARCH, 2008. P.C. : This review petition has been filed against an order passed by this Court on 12th April, 2004 dismissing the writ petition on the ground that the four allegations had been levelled against the petitioner. These allegations were that: When an inspection was made of the shop of the petitioner, it was closed; He was asked to report to the Tahsildar on 7th January, 2001 with records for inspection, record was not produced; Customers had given a statement that instead of selling kerosene at the Government rate the petitioner was selling at a higher rate; and that the shop was kept open after 7.00 p.m. 2. The Preliminary Authority found all these charges proved against the petitioner. In appeal also these facts were proved. Revision before the Minister 2 was also dismissed. Therefore, the court thought that since whole issue is dependent on facts, for which a competent authority had come to an ascertained conclusion and which was not possible for this Court to disturb findings, which in any case were supported by cogent evidence and, therefore, dismissed the petition. 3. Now a review has been filed and only ground taken in the review is that the Court had over looked the material evidence and also over looked the legal proposition with respect to the powers of the Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. This is well settled that this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 or Article 227 of the Constitution of India, does not become a Court of appeal and findings of competent authorities on facts are not generally disturbed unless it is shown that the conclusion arrived at on facts were based on no evidence or were in any way perverse. That had neither been shown when the writ petition was dismissed nor is it shown today as nobody is even present for the petitioner. 3. The review petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Sd/- (BILAL NAZKI, J.) Sd/- (S. A. BOBDE, J.)