1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 3505/2010 _______________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders | CORAM: K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. Date: 20.10.2010 The petitioner claims to be a handicapped citizen, had a licence to distribute food-grains in the vicinity of licensed area. The survey carried by the competent authorities indicated that the petitioner had lifted quota of wheat and rice more than the permitted supply and even did not distribute it amongst card holders and disposed of illegally. The allegations prima facie were found to be correct as the record was verified by the competent authorities. The petitioner, through his Advocate, was heard by the learned Deputy Commissioner, Supply Division, Aurangabad, and after hearing the counsel, he has passed the order on 9.10.2003. The grievance of the 2 petitioner is that this order was not communicated to him. He approached the learned Minister in revision. There was delay. The learned Minister also found that no plausible explanation was offered for condoning the delay. In spite of remand in Writ Petition No.1628/2003, the learned Minister could not adhere to the contentions raised by the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner raised several disputed questions of facts, which can not be a subject matter of writ jurisdiction, consequently no adjudication is desirable on such submissions. The fact remains that there was proper representation from the petitioner before the competent authorities and the general impression that can be carried is that he was conscious of the order dated 9.10.2003. His physical disability could not be coined as a ground for condoning the delay of two years. The learned Minister has also observed that there was no such application pending before him seeking to condone delay. The order under challenge does not call for interference. Writ petition lacks merits. The same is dismissed. The petitioner, 3 if otherwise eligible, may apply to the competent authorities. (K.U. Chandiwal, J.) Dt/- 20.10.2010 ndk/c2010107