JUDGMENT Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Petitioner’s fair price shop agreement has been cancelled by means of order dated 15.4.2008 and the aforesaid order has been confirmed in appeal by the Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra vide order dated 10.8.2009. Both the authorities have recorded findings of fact that regular distribution of essential commodities was not made to the beneficiaries and the petitioner has violated conditions of agreement. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that eight affidavits were filed subsequently before the appellate authority wherein beneficiaries clearly said that they have no complaint against the petitioner and are satisfied with his system of distribution. Admittedly none of these documents were available before the Deputy Collector. He has clearly observed that no evidence in defence was produced before him. He has further recorded findings of fact as under:- ^^mijksDr ds vfrfjDr fodzsrk ds xr ekg tuojh o Qjojh 2008 ds forj.k ds vfHkys[kksa dk Hkh voyksdu fd;k x;kA ekg tuojh 2008 esa ist la[;k 1 ls 42 rd ch-ih-,y- o vUR;ksn; ;kstuk ds jk’kudkMksZa dk forj.k ntZ fd;k x;k gS ftudh la[;k 364 gS ¼feV~Vh ds rsy dk forj.k NksM+dj½ blds lkis{k ek= 252 dzsrkvksa ds gLrk{kj o vaxwBk fu’kkuh gSaA bl izdkj 112 ykHkkfFkZ;ksa dks fcuk gLrk{kj djk;s [kk|kUu phuh dk forj.k n’kkZ;k x;k gS blh izdkj ekg Qjojh 2008 ds forj.k jftLVj ij ist la[;k 01 ij 30 dzsrkvksa ds lkis{k 22 dzsrkvksa ds gLrk{kj gSa] ist la[;k 02 ij 30 dzsrkvksa ds lkis{k 25 dzsrkvksa ds izkfIr ds gLrk{kj gSa] ist la[;k 03 ij 30 dszsrkvksa ds lkis{k 27 dzsrkvksa ds gLrk{kj gSa rFkk ist la[;k 04 ij 30 dzsrkvksa ds lkis{k 28 dzsrkvksa ds gLrk{kj gSa blh izdkj nksuksa ekgksa ds forj.k jftLVj esa feV~Vh ds rsy ntZ dzsrkvksa ds leku] gLrk{kj ugha gS dzsrkvksa ds lkis{k izkIrdrkZvksa dh la[;k de gSA blls Li"V gS fd ykHkkfFkZ;ksa dks mfpr nj oLrqvksa dk forj.k u dj mudk nq:i;ksx fd;k x;k gSA blds vfrfjDr forj.k jftLVj esa forj.k ds dze dk bUnzkt ugha fd;k x;k gS forj.k djrs le; ykHkkfFkZ;ksa ds fuokl dk Hkh Li"V mYys[k ugha gSA xsagw] pkoy] phuh o feV~Vh ds rsy dh fuxZr ek=k o fy;s x;s ewY; dk vadu ,d LFkku ij vafdr dj ,t ,u yxkdj forj.k n’kkZ;k x;k gSA bl izdkj izR;sd ykHkkFkhZ dks fuxZr fuèkkZfjr ek=k o fy;s x;s fu/kkZfjr ewY; dh iqf"V ugha gksrh gSA** 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not dispute the above findings and contradict or show perversity therein. He however, submitted that sometimes one person used to collect commodities on behalf of two, three or more persons and, therefore, it may be possible that signatures of all persons to whom the commodities distributed were not there. This explanation admittedly was not provided before the authorities concerned. Petitioner could not produce any positive evidence in respect of same and is raising this issue for the first time before this Court. The argument advanced investigation into facts. Having failed to provide these facts before the authorities below and they having no opportunity or occasion to consider the correctness of these factual aspects, the petitioner cannot be allowed to raise these factual aspects for the first time before this Court. 4. The Commissioner has also recorded certain findings of fact as under: ^^ftlesa eq[;r% xjhch js[kk ls uhps thou;kiu djus okys yksxksa dks xsgwWa pkoy] feV~Vh ds rsy dk forj.k ugha fd;k tkrk gS rFkk dkMZ/kkjdksa ds jk’ku dkMZ tcju vius ikl tek dj fy;s x;s gSa vkSj ml ij fiNys ekg dk bUnzkt fd;s tkus dk mYys[k fd;k x;k gSA mDr f’kdk;r dh tkap uk;c rglhynkj] f’kdksgkckn ls djk;h x;h ftUgksaus viuh vk[;k ds fu"d"kZ esa bafxr fd;k gS fd mfpr nj fodzsrk Jh v’kksd dqekj] xzke iapk;r nf[kukjk }kjk de ls de vkB ukS ekgksa dk [kk|kUu ,oa feV~Vh ds rsy dh dkykcktkjh djds 'kklu dh uhfr ds foijhr vfu;ferrk cjrh tk jgh gS tks ,d xaHkkhj vkjksi gSA uk;c rglhynkj }kjk tkap ds le; fofHkUu dkMZ/kkjdksa ds c;ku Hkh vfHkfyf[kr fd;s x;s gSa ftUgksaus mfpr nj fodzsrk }kjk dh tk jgh vfu;ferrk ds laca/k esa vius c;ku fn;s gSaA vr% ,slh fLFkfr esa vihydrkZ ds fo}ku vf/koDrk dk ;g rdZ fd uk;c rglhynkj }kjk fodzsrk ds le{k dksbZ tkap ugha dh x;h vkSj [kk|kUu forj.k ds laca/k esa xzkeoklh dks mlls dksbZ vkifRr ugha gS] =qfViw.kZ gSA uk;c rglhynkj }kjk fof/kor tkap dh x;h gS vkSj tkap ds le; Lo;a fodzsrk vuqifLFkr jgk gS rFkk mldh nqdku Hkh can ik;h x;h gSA** 5. In the entire writ petition these facts have not been challenged to be incorrect or perverse. In the circumstances the said finding cannot be interfered in the under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. In the entire writ petition these facts have not been challenged to be incorrect or perverse. In the circumstances the said finding cannot be interfered in the under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of “Sita Devi v. Commissioner, Lucknow Division, 2010(8) ADJ 700 ”. Therein the Court has interfered having found that there was no specific findings with regard to any particular irregularity committed by the dealer as is evident from paragraph 19 of the judgment which is reproduced as under:- “Merely saying that the distribution is not being done properly would not be sufficient for passing an order cancelling the licence of the petitioner. The valuable rights of the petitioner flow from the licence which has been given in his favour and in case the same is to be cancelled or withdrawn, there should be sufficient reason for the same.” 7. Similarly in “Pramod Kumar v. State of U.P. and others, 2006 (10) ADJ 610 (DB)”, which is also relied by petitioner this Court has interfered on the ground that the copy of the enquiry report was not supplied to the petitioner. 8. From the record of this case it is evident that before the Courts below, petitioner not only saw enquiry report but also challenged the same on the ground that it was submitted without making any spot inspection. Hence even this ground is not available. 9. Writ petition thus lacks merit. Dismissed. —————