1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. C. A. Z. NO. 597 OF 2011 IN L. P. A. ST. NO. 8633 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 4613 OF 2008 Tukaram Tryambak Ingole vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. C. A. Z. NO. 718 OF 2011 IN L. P. A. ST. NO. 8545 OF 2011 IN W. P. NO. 4614 of 2008 Tukaram Tryambak Ingole vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. _______________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders. ______________________________________________________________________________ Shri Deshpande Adv for applicant. Shri P. B. Patil Adv for respondent 4. CORAM : B.P.DHARMADHIKARI & P. D KODE, JJ. DATED : NOVEMBER 17, 2011. Identical order passed by learned Single Judge refusing to interfere with the orders passed by lower authorities canceling fair price shop licence and kerosene licence of appellant/applicant are questioned in both these matters. As there is delay of about 113 days in filing L. P. A. civil applications are taken out for condoning that delay. Reason for condonation is loss of source of income. The shop of which licence was canceled and 2 the kerosene licence discontinued is alleged to be the only source of income. Learned counsel for respondent No.5 has filed reply pointing out that there is about 20 acres of land with the family of applicant and that land is irrigated having three wells. He has in the alternative pointed out that applicant could have approached the legal aid authority. He states that opportunity was given to the applicant to submit reply to show cause notice but it was deliberately not availed. The inspection of shops was carried out in presence of appellant/applicant and this fact is not disputed by him. Records with authorities were inspected by applicant’s Advocate on 27.06.2007 and he stated that he would take further inspection on next day, but never turned up for such inspection. We have perused records and we find the facts disclosed by respondent No.5 correct. Instead of completing exercise of inspection of records, applicant thereafter filed application for grant of certified copies and attempted to prolong the proceedings. He was then having both shops/licences with him. He, therefore, was killing time to continue his source of income and did not file reply to show cause notice. It appears to be a deliberate move to leave some ground to argue the matter and a roving effort. Learned Single Judge has correctly appreciated the controversy. We do not see any jurisdictional error or perversity. 3 As there is no just and sufficient reason for condoning the delay, we reject the civil application. JUDGE JUDGE svk