JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the appellant at the admission stage. 2. The defects pointed out by the office are waived.By way of this intra Court appeal, appellant-petitioner has challenged the order of the learned Single judge dated 4.5.2009 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3970/2009. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant-petitioner, who had been granted authorisation as fair price shopkeeper, under the Rajasthan Food Grains and Other Essential Articles (Regulation of Distribution) Order, 1976, was served with a show cause notice on 6.8.2005 by the District Supply Officer, Bhilwara pointing out that in the inspection carried out on 11.8.2004, several irregularities were found. The petitioner was informed that his acts and omissions were violative of conditions No. 5, 11 and 14 of the authorization. The authorisation of the petitioner was cancelled on the allegations of substantial irregularities, including his failing to account for 135.95 quintals of wheat. In these circumstances, the appellant-petitioner filed the above writ petition, for restoration of his authorisation as fair price shopkeeper. The learned Single Judge, vide order dated 4.5.2009, rejected the writ petition holding that the writ petition suffers from gross delay and laches, inasmuch as the authorisation was cancelled as back as on 27.9.2005 and the appellant-petitioner made a request for restoration of authorisation only on 18.1.2008 and thereafter chose to file writ petition only on 23.3.2009. Aggrieved by the above order of the learned Single Judge, the appellant-petitioner has preferred this intra Court appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the fair price shop of the appellant was inspected by the inspector on 11.8.2004 and the authorisation of the appellant's shop was suspended for 90 days on 6.4.2005 and thereafter the appellant moved an application before the District Collector on 18.1.208 for restoration of the authorisation as he had already deposited the difference amount. In 2009 the writ petition was filed by the appellant. In 2009 the writ petition was filed by the appellant. The counsel for the appellant further contended that the writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on the ground of gross delay and laches inasmuch as the authorisation was cancelled as back as on 27.9.2005 and the writ petition was filed on 23.3.2009, whereas there was sufficient reasons for such a delay in filing the writ petition and that delay has been well explained in the writ petition itself but the learned Single judge failed to appreciate this fact. 5. We have considered the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant and also perused the order of the learned Single judge. 6. It is a fact that instead of making a representation before the competent authority, the appellant-petitioner could have filed the writ petition in the year 2005 or 2006 and the delay in filing the writ petition could not be explained by the appellant. Therefore, in our view, the learned Single judge rightly dismissed the writ petition on the ground of delay and laches on the part of the appellant. 7. The order of the learned Single judge, does not suffer from any illegality, irregularity or impropriety. Accordingly, the order of the learned Single judge dated 4.5.2009 is maintained and the appeal is dismissed at the admission stage.Appeal dismissed. *******