JUDGMENT Bakhshish Kaur, J. - This revision is directed against the order dated September 05, 2000 as the Learned Additional District Judge, Karnal has dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner on account of dismissal of his application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC by the trial court. 2. The petitioner, who is plaintiff before the trial Court, is a wholesale dealer of kerosene. He is carrying on the business in the name and style of M/s. Jai Hindustan Oil Company (hereinafter referred to as the company). A criminal case under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act was registered against the company on January 28, 2000. The respondents intended to initiate inquiry against the petitioner for the cancellation of licence issued in the name of the company. The petitioner, therefore, filed a suit for permanent injunction and alongwith the suit, an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) was also filed restraining the defendants-respondents from conducting the departmental inquiry. It was dismissed by the trial court on June 26, 2000. The appeal preferred by the plaintiff also met with the same fate. Hence the revision. 3. I have heard Sh. Sunil Panwar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sh. Sultan Singh, learned Assistant Advocate-General for the State of Haryana. 4. Sh. Sunil Panwar, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the departmental proceedings under the criminal charge arising out of the criminal case registered under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) are just on identical and similar set of evidence. Charge being of grave nature involving complicated questions of law and fact, therefore it is desirable that the departmental proceedings should be stayed till the conclusion of the criminal case. In case he is denied the discretionary relief under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of the Code, then the defence taken by the petitioner is likely to be disclosed in the departmental enquiry, which would prejudicially affect the petitioners case in the criminal proceedings. To support his argument, he has placed reliance on Capt. M. Paul Authority v. Bharat Gold Mines, 1999(3) SCC 679. 5. Whether any prejudice would be caused to the petitioner if the departmental proceedings continue ? To support his argument, he has placed reliance on Capt. M. Paul Authority v. Bharat Gold Mines, 1999(3) SCC 679. 5. Whether any prejudice would be caused to the petitioner if the departmental proceedings continue ? Whether it is a case where the disclosure of the defence would prejudicially affect his case in the criminal proceedings ? The answer to this query in short is in negative. 6. It is not only made out from the impugned order passed by the courts below, but also as stated by the learned counsel during the course of arguments, the departmental proceedings are almost complete. In the criminal case also, some of the evidence of the prosecution has been recorded. In fact, the Deputy Director, who raided the premises has been examined by the prosecution. Thus, the defence already taken up by the petitioner is an open secret because the defence taken up by him in the criminal case has already been taken by him in the departmental proceedings, which are almost complete. In State of Rajasthan v. B.K. Meena and others, AIR 1997 SC 13, it has been observed that departmental enquiry should not be delayed unduly. The interest of justice, administration and good governance demand that these proceedings are concluded expeditiously. 7. If a person has violated the terms and conditions of the licence, then the authorities concerned are within their right to take necessary action subject to proof where the action required to be taken under Section 7 of the Act is a penal action. For effective and proper check that there is no misuse of supply of essential commodities like kerosene, the controlling authority under the Act has got every right to check such misuse. Thus, where upon a raid, the misuse comes to light or notice of the authorities concerned and if the proceedings under the civil suit are allowed to be stayed till and decision of the criminal case registered against the petitioner, it would amount to giving a licence or a freehand to the person to continue with the misuse of the supply of essential commodities and the Court in such like cases, will not extend the helping hand in the exercise of discretionary powers. 8. 8. For the aforesaid reasons, I am of the considered view that the courts below have rightly come to the conclusion that no prima facie case is made in favour of the petitioner. It is also well-settled that when there is concurrent finding arrived at by the courts below, the High Court should not interfere unless the jurisdiction vested in the Court has been exercised illegality or with material irregularity. In this regard reliance is placed on The Managing Director (MIG) Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. Balanagar, Hyderabad and another v. Ajit Prasad Tarway Manager, (Purchase and Stores) Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd., Balanager, Hyderabad, AIR 1973 SC 76; The Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Suresh Chandra Jaipuria, AIR 1976 SC 2621. 9. In view of the aforesaid, no case is made out for interference with the impugned order. Petition dismissed.