Judgment :- K. Suguna, J. This writ appeal is filed as against the order passed in W.P.No.18397 of 1997 dated 30.6.2000. The respondents in the writ petition are the appellants. .2. The respondent herein is a dealer in Kerosene with a license No.1/84-85 in the erstwhile Triplicane zone, now Chepauk Zone, and monthly allotment of kerosene was issued by the Commissioner of Civil Supplies for the distribution of the card holders under Public Distribution System. A quantity of 246 Kilo litres was allotted to the respondent for the month of May 1988. The respondent had lifted 248 kilolitres on 35. 1988 as against the allotment of 246 kilo litres made for the month of May 1988. The respondent should have issued a quantity of 24 kilolitres to All India Women’s Consumer Co-operative Society for issue of Public Distribution System retail outlet as per allotment order. Instead of issuing 24 kilolitres, the respondent had supplied only 12 kilolitres and thus created unnecessary problems to 1200 card holders. Consequently, complaints were lodged. Basing on this, on the forenoon of 6. 1988, the third appellant, i.e., the licensing authority inspected the premises of the respondent and found a shortage of 9.4 kilolitres of kerosene. The wholesaler had not accounted for the receipt of 48 kilolitres of kerosene lifted from Hindustan Petroleum Corporation on 6. 1988. For this irregularities, charges were framed against the respondent by the licensing authority in his proceedings dated 6. 1988. For the same, the respondent had submitted her explanation on 6. 1988 and the respondent was also personally heard. After the case was examined in detail, orders were passed canceling the wholesale licence by the licensing authority by proceedings No.A4/3087/88 dated 28. 1988. As against the same, the respondent had filed the writ petition. W.P.No.11089 of 1988 was filed before this Court and the same was disposed of by an order dated 30.4.1991 stating to issue a fresh notice and to revive the case afresh after issue of fresh charges. As per the above directions, the matter was reviewed and therefore charges were framed against the respondent by proceedings dated 4. 1992 and on receipt of the explanation from the respondent dated 16. As per the above directions, the matter was reviewed and therefore charges were framed against the respondent by proceedings dated 4. 1992 and on receipt of the explanation from the respondent dated 16. 1992 and after perusing the matter in detail, the licensing authority by proceedings dated 30.6.1992 passed an order forfeiting the security deposit and cancelled the whole sale licence under Clause 23(1) and 18(1) of the Tamil Nadu kerosene (Registration of Trade) Order 1973. As against this, the respondent had preferred an appeal and the same was rejected by an order dated 112. 1992. A revision was also preferred by the respondent and the same was also rejected by the second appellant by an order dated 24. 1993. As against the order dated 24. 1993, the respondent had moved the Government. The Government by an order dated 21. 1997 issued in Government Letter (Ms.) No.15, Co-operation, Food and Consumer Protection Department imposed penalty of five times of the cost of 69.4 kilolitres of kerosene. Aggrieved against that order, the respondent had failed W.P.No.18307 of 1997 and the same was allowed. As against the same, the respondents in the writ petition have preferred this writ appeal. 3. According to the learned Additional Government Pleader the respondent had not acted as per the object of the grant of licence to promote fair and equitable distribution of kerosene and she had not supplied kerosene properly as per the indents placed by the retailers. In fact, on 6. 1998, inspection was conducted only on the complaint received from the All India Women’s Consumer Co-operative Society by its letter dated 6. 1988. During the time of inspection, it was found that there was shortage of 9.4 kilolitres of kerosene and no satisfactory explanation was given to the same. That apart, according to the learned Additional Government Pleader, Kerosene is an essential commodity required by the weaker section of the society for the preparation of food. As such any infraction of the control order dealing with the said essential commodity should be viewed seriously and appropriate punishment should be imposed on the dealers, who violate the terms and conditions. That apart, according to the learned Additional Government Pleader, Kerosene is an essential commodity required by the weaker section of the society for the preparation of food. As such any infraction of the control order dealing with the said essential commodity should be viewed seriously and appropriate punishment should be imposed on the dealers, who violate the terms and conditions. Apart from this, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the findings recorded by the authorities can be distributed only when that finding are basing on a note evidence and the conclusion arrived at by the officials are of such nature that no reasonable person would have reached such a conclusion. But, as far as the case in hand is concerned, it is an admitted fact that inspection was conducted on 6. 1988 and at the time of inspection, the shortage of kerosene was also found out and the said shortage of kerosene was not properly explained or accounted for. The paramount consideration of the public interest require that the dealers who violate the control order promulgated under the Essential Commodities Act should be punished appropriately in order to keep the public Distribution system effective and efficacious. Basing on this, learned Additional government Pleader has prayed for setting aside the order passed by the learned single Judge dated 30.06.2000 made in W.P.No.18397 of 1997. .4. A perusal of the order passed by the learned single Judge reveals that the learned single Judge on the ground that though there was physical shortage of 9.4 kilolitres of kerosene, a tanker load of kerosene – 8.000 kilo litres was kept in the tanker outside the business premises, which was not taken into account while calculating the actual kerosene at the time of inspection conducted on 6. 1988. Though this was brought to the notice of the Assistant Commissioner at time of Inspection on 6. 1988. The quantity of kerosene which was available within the business premises alone was taken into account while calculating the balance. Basing on this, the learned single Judge has given a finding that the explanation offered by the respondents shows that the respondent had a reasonable cause and the same was not examined and appreciated properly by the authorities concerned. That apart, with reference to the allegation that the respondent had received 48.0 kilo litres of kerosene on 6. Basing on this, the learned single Judge has given a finding that the explanation offered by the respondents shows that the respondent had a reasonable cause and the same was not examined and appreciated properly by the authorities concerned. That apart, with reference to the allegation that the respondent had received 48.0 kilo litres of kerosene on 6. 1988 and the same was not brought to the account and not found in the business premises is concerned, basing on the explanation submitted by the respondent and also the order of third appellant, viz., the licensing authority dated 212. 1988 and the confirmation order of the first appellant dated 111. 1990, the learned single Judge has come to the conclusion that the allegation leveled with regard to the short of 48.0 kilo litres cannot stand against the respondent and that apart, the learned single Judge, basing on the findings given by this Court by Justice Toom Meenakumari in W.P. No.1395 of 1995 dated 30.1.1999 has held that the allegation leveled against the respondent cannot be sustained. Basing on this, the allegation leveled against the respondent was set aside. As long as the findings given by this Court in the above said writ petition is not disputed and basing on the findings given by the learned single Judge, the allegation leveled against the respondent cannot stand. Besides, the order of the learned single Judge is based on the findings of this Court rendered in W.P.No.1395 of 1991 dated 30.1.1999, as against which no appeal is filed. 5. For these reasons, we do not find any ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned single Judge. Accordingly, the writ appeal stands dismissed. No costs.