JUDGMENT 1. - By way of this writ petition, filed only on 23.03.2009, the petitioner seeks restoration of his authorisation as fair price shopkeeper that was cancelled as back as on 27.09.2005. 2. From the averments taken in the petition and the documents annexed thereto it appears that the petitioner, who had been granted authorisation as fair price shopkeeper at Gadarmala, District Bhilwara under the Rajasthan Food Grains and other Essential Articles (Regulation of Distribution) Order, 1976 ['the Order of 1976'], was served with a show cause notice dated 06.08.2005 [Annex.1] by the District Supply Officer, Bhilwara ['the DSO'] pointing out that in the inspection carried out on 11.08.2004, several irregularities were found including the following:- " 1- LVkWd jftLVj ch0ih0,y0] vUR;ksn;] dsjksflu fnukad 31-07-2004 ds ckn la/kkfjr ugha ik;s x;sA 2- ,l0th0vkj0 okbZ xsagw jsdkMZ vuqlkj 135-95 fDoUVy xsgwa HkkSfrd lR;kiu ij de ik;k x;kA 3- oDr fujh{k.k ;wfuV jftLV~j miyC/k ugha feykA 4- ewY; lwph cksMZ fjDr ik;k x;kA 5- fjVuZ dh izfr;ka miyC/k ugha feyhA 6- rglhy dk;kZy; ,oa MhvkjMh, ls Hkqxrku ,oa dwiu tek gksus dk izek.k i= is'k djsa rFkk dksbZ Hkqxrku 'ks"k ugha jgus dk izek.k i= is'k djsaA " 3. The petitioner was informed that his acts and omissions were violative of conditions No.5, 11 and 14 of the authorisation; and was called upon to explain on 23.08.2005. The petitioner allegedly submitted a reply to such notice, copy whereof has been placed on record as Annexure-2 stating, inter alia, that the stock register was not updated for want of sale transactions from 31.07.2004 to 11.08.2004. In relation to the missing quantity of 135.95 quintals of wheat, the petitioner stated that he had distributed the same at the instance of Sarpanch who had assured to supply the coupons later; and further that he had deposited the amount of difference in the treasury. In relation to the other objections, the petitioner stated that the unit register was at his house and could not be produced at the time of inspection; that further distribution work had not commenced for want of supply and, therefore, the board was not filled up; and that he had already produced the payment vouchers from the tehsil and DRDA. 4. It appears that the District Supply Officer, Bhilwara proceeded to order cancellation of the authorisation of the petitioner by the decision as rendered in Case No.148/2005 on 27.09.2005. 4. It appears that the District Supply Officer, Bhilwara proceeded to order cancellation of the authorisation of the petitioner by the decision as rendered in Case No.148/2005 on 27.09.2005. The petitioner has placed with this petition as Annexure-3 the consequential order issued on 27.09.2005 whereby the DSO informed all the concerned about cancellation of authorisation of the petitioner by the decision rendered in case No.148/2005 but, for the reasons best known to him, the petitioner has not produced on record the principal order passed on 27.09.2005. 5. The petitioner has averred that on 20.05.2005, 12.07.2005 and 06.08.2005, he had deposited respectively the sums of Rs.50,000/-, Rs.24,000/- and Rs.15,727/- [challans Annexs. 4 to 6]; and, according to the petitioner, there had not been any complaint by any of the consumers and rather, the Sarpanch concerned had requested the Collector to restore his authorisation by the communication dated 15.10.2005 [Annex.7]. The petitioner has further averred that on 18.01.2008, he made a request to the Collector, Bhilwara [Annex.8] for restoration of the authorisation as he had already deposited the difference amount. 6. With the aforesaid averments, the petitioner has alleged that the DSO did not appreciate the reply submitted by him and forced him to deposit the amount in an arbitrary manner. It is suggested with reference to the communication of the Sarpanch dated 15.10.2005 that the place of business was inspected without any basis and false complaint was made against the petitioner. It is submitted that there had not been application of mind by the DSO and revocation of authorisation results in violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 7. Having perused the material placed on record, this Court is unable to find even a wee bit of justification for interference in this matter in writ jurisdiction. 8. The authorisation of the petitioner was cancelled as back as on 27.09.2005 on the allegations of substantial irregularities including his failing to account for 135.95 quintals of wheat. The petitioner has neither placed the principal order dated 27.09.2005 on record nor has pointed out if he challenged the same in appeal under the Order of 1976. The document Annexure-3 as filed with this petition is only the consequential order issued by the DSO pursuant to the order passed in Case No.148/2005. The petitioner has neither placed the principal order dated 27.09.2005 on record nor has pointed out if he challenged the same in appeal under the Order of 1976. The document Annexure-3 as filed with this petition is only the consequential order issued by the DSO pursuant to the order passed in Case No.148/2005. For the petitioner failing even to place on record the relevant order sought to questioned, this writ petition deserves to be rejected outright. Moreover, there appears no reason whatsoever to consider interference in the said order dated 27.09.2005 in this writ petition filed after about 3-1/2 years thereof. 9. Even on merits, this Court is unable to find any error or illegality in cancellation of authorisation of the petitioner. It is noticed from the allegations as levelled against the petitioner that apart from other irregularities, a substantial quantity of 135.95 quintals of wheat was found short at the time of verification to which the petitioner suggested having distributed the same at the instance of Sarpanch. The authorities could not have accepted such cursory and fanciful suggestions; and looking to the gravity of the matter, the authorities cannot be faulted in revoking the licence of the petitioner. Though it appears that the petitioner made the deposits regarding such shortage of 135.95 quintals of wheat in installments before the proceedings were taken up by the authorities but, for such deposit alone, the fault and irregularities could not have been treated wiped out. The amount deposited was nevertheless recoverable from the petitioner for his failing to account for substantial quantity of wheat. The suggestion as made by the Gram Panchayat to the Collector, Bhilwara does not invest the petitioner with any right of restoration of the authorisation. 10. In any case, the writ petition suffers from gross delay and laches inasmuch as the authorisation was cancelled as back as on 27.09.2005 and the petitioner allegedly made a request for restoration of authorisation only on 18.01.2008 and thereafter chose to file this writ petition only on 23.03.2009. 11. There appears absolutely no reason to issue any writ, order, or direction at the instance of the petitioner in this matter. 12. The petition stands rejected.Writ Petition Rejected. *******