1. Petitioners have questioned order dated 25.06.2009 passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Srinagar-respondent No. 1 in appeal No. 27/2008 as well as award dated 14.06.2008 passed by Divisional Consumer Protection Forum, Srinagar in File No. 396/2007, Srinagar, on the grounds taken in the writ petition. 2. It appears that complainant-respondent No. 2 herein filed a complaint before the Divisional Consumer Forum for redressal of his grievances. Non-applicants-writ petitioners herein appeared and filed objections, thereafter had chosen to remain absent and accordingly exparte proceedings were drawn against the petitioner-department and exparte order came to be passed by the Divisional Consumer Forum on 14.06.2008 against them. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner-department filed appeal before respondent No. 1, was dismissed vide judgment and order dated 25.6.2009. Feeling aggrieved the petitioners herein have sought quashment of both the orders passed by the Divisional Consumer Forum as well as respondent No. 1. 3. Precisely the case of complainant-respondent No. 2 herein was that a water connection was provided to him by the petitioner-department under No. 4313/64 about 20 years ago and was paying dues regularly and there was no balance upto ending March 2007. He purchased a new house at Mohalla Shalapora, Model Village Tujjar Sharief and shifted from his ancestral place of residence situated at Village Tujjer Sharief, Mohalla Babapora and his water connection was also shifted to his new place of residence on 9.12.2006 after he paid all dues to the tune of Rs. 2265/- vide receipt No. 3187 dated 21.02.2007. Thereafter writ petitioner No. 4-non-applicant in the main complaint disconnected the water connection without any right and reason thereby deprived respondent No. 2 from drinking water which is against the mandate of fundamental rights. Accordingly, he filed a complaint before the Divisional Consumer Forum which was granted. The Divisional Consumer Forum after considering the entire facts, which have gone unrebutted, allowed the complaint vide order dated 14.06.2008, which was also upheld by the appellate court. Both the courts have returned concurrent findings of fact and are in no way abuse of process of law or have been passed without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction. Thus the writ petition is not maintainable. 4. Both the courts have returned concurrent findings of fact and are in no way abuse of process of law or have been passed without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction. Thus the writ petition is not maintainable. 4. The Apex Court in case State of Haryana v. Manoj Kumar, 2010 AIR SCW 1990 as well as in series of cases, i.e., AIR 2004 SC 692 , AIR 1999 SC 162 , AIR 1998 SC 1990 , AIR 1996 SC 2994 , AIR 1984 SC 38 , AIR 1963 SC 1895 and AIR 1958 SC 398 has held that the writ petition is not maintainable against concurrent findings of fact. It is apt to reproduce para 36 & 37 herein: "36. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. We are clearly of the opinion that the High Court, in the impugned judgment, has erred in interfering with the concurrent findings of fact of the courts below under its limited jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. The High Court erroneously observed that "the authenticity of the decree passed by the court cannot be questioned. Therefore, the genuineness of the sale price has to be presumed." This finding of the High Court cannot be sustained. It would have far reaching ramifications and consequences. If the genuineness of the sale price entered into by the buyer and the seller cannot be questioned, then in majority of the cases it is unlikely that the State would ever receive the stamp duty according to the circle rate or the Collector rate. The approach of the High Court is totally unrealistic. 37. The High Court in the impugned judgment has also erroneously observed that "there cannot be any opportunity with the vendee to fabricate an agreement of sale for showing the incorrect sale price because the litigating parties would not ordinarily reach such an agreement and sign the fabricated document." 5. In the given circumstances, the writ petition is not maintainable and is accordingly dismissed along with all CMPs.