IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR ORDER (Prahalad Rai Mundra Vs. State of Raj. & Ors) S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 8061/2007 Date of judgment:- 08.12.2007 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA Mr. Sanjeet Purohit , for the petitioner. BY THE COURT:- This writ petition is directed against order dated 18.07.05 passed by the Additional Collector, Bhilwara, whereby an appeal preferred by the petitioner under Clause 22 of The Rajasthan Food Grains & Other Essential Articles (Regulation of Distribution) Order, 1976, (in short “Order 1976” hereinafter) against the order dated 03.05.05 passed by District Supply Officer, Bhilwara canceling the authorisation of the petitioner to operate fair price shop for selling kerosene, has been rejected. The petitioner has also challenged order dated 30.09.05 passed by the Food Commissioner, Rajasthan whereby the revision petition preferred by the petitioner against the aforesaid orders has been rejected. An authorisation was issued in favour of the petitioner by the District Collector (Supply), Bhilwara, under Order 1976, authorising him to operate a fair price shop for sale of kerosene. On 27.06.03 the District Supply Officer, Bhilwara inspected the shop of the petitioner. During the course of the inspection it was found that stock register of the shop was not maintained after 16.06.03. On scrutiny of record and physical verification of the stock, 210 liter kerosene was found in excess. Accordingly, 400 liter kerosene found in stock was seized and taken in the custody of competent authority. Vide notice dated 15.07.03 the explanation of the petitioner was sought regarding the excess quantity of kerosene found in stock. After consideration of the reply filed on behalf of the petitioner the competent authority found the petitioner guilty and accordingly, in exercise of the power conferred by clause 8 of the Order 1976, vide order dated 03.05.05 proceeded to cancel the authorisation of the petitioner and also forfeited the security deposit in terms of clause 9 of the Order 1976. Aggrieved by order dated 03.05.05 the petitioner preferred an appeal before the appellate authority i.e. District Collector, Bhilwara, under clause 22 of the Order 1976, which has been rejected by the appellate authority vide order dated 18.07.05. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders dated 03.05.05 and 18.07.05 the petitioner preferred a revision petition under clause 22 A of the Order 1976 before the Food Commissioner, Rajasthan, Jaipur which stands rejected vide the order dated 30.09.05.Hence this petition. Admittedly, the petitioner has exhausted the remedies available under the order 1976, and lastly the revision petition preferred by the petitioner was dismissed by Revisional authority vide order dated 30.09.05. The writ petition assailing the said orders has been filed by the petitioner on 10.10.07. Thus, the writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner after a lapse of more than two years since passing of the last order by the Revisional authority. There is absolutely no averment whatsoever, in the writ petition explaining inordinate delay of two years in filing the petition. The party approaching the court should move to the court at the earliest possible time and should explain satisfactorily the cause of the delay in filing the petition.Since the petitioner has acquiesced in accepting the cancellation of authorisation and did not challenged the orders impugned with the utmost expedition, therefore, this court is not inclined to grant any indulgence to him in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No orders as to cost. (SANGEET LODHA), J.