ORDER 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the orders dated 10.05.2018, 12.11.2018 & 12.06.2019 passed by the District Supply Officer II, Udaipur, District Collector, Udaipur and Additional Food Commissioner, Jaipur respectively. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has authorisation for running fair price shop and the petitioner has been distributing essential commodities through POS machine and as such, the petitioner has complied with the directions issued by the Authorities from time to time for distributing the essential commodities. 3. Learned counsel submitted that a Special Team was constituted to inspect fair price shops in different parts of the Rajasthan and as such, shop of the petitioner came to be inspected on 21.07.2017 and inspection report on the spot was prepared and according to the said report, 85 Kg. of wheat was found short. 4. Learned counsel submits that the said report also shows the satisfaction of the consumers and there was no complaint as such. Learned counsel submitted that an ex-parte enquiry report for necessary action was submitted and thereafter cyclostyled order was passed, suspending the authorization of the petitioner and a show cause notice was issued on 24.07.2017. 5. Learned counsel submitted that the show cause notice issued to the petitioner, was in respect of 87.16 quintal of wheat found in excess quantity, wrong transaction of 1944.5 litre of Kerosene Oil and 21.445 quintal of sugar, which was not part of the inspection report. 6. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner filed his reply to the notice and denied the allegations levelled against him in the notice. 7. Learned counsel submitted that the DSO vide impugned order dated 10.05.2018 cancelled the Authorization of the petitioner shop and Licensing Authority found that the petitioner had violated condition Nos.6, 11, 17 & 18 of the License and as such, same was also an offence under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. 8. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner had filed an appeal and the Appellate Authority without considering the grounds of appeal, dismissed the appeal vide order dated 12.11.2018. 9. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner preferred the Revision Petition and the Revisional Authority had also dismissed the revision petition vide order dated 12.06.2019. 10. 8. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner had filed an appeal and the Appellate Authority without considering the grounds of appeal, dismissed the appeal vide order dated 12.11.2018. 9. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner preferred the Revision Petition and the Revisional Authority had also dismissed the revision petition vide order dated 12.06.2019. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that all the Authorities have passed the order without there being any material available on record, on the ground that the petitioner had violated the conditions of the license. 11. Learned counsel submitted that the impugned order of cancelling the authorization was passed without giving personal hearing to the petitioner. 12. Learned counsel submitted that the alleged enquiry report dated 24.07.2017 had nowhere mentioned certain allegations, which were made basis of cancelling the authorization. 13. Learned counsel submitted that the Authorities even did not afford opportunity of cross-examination. Learned counsel submitted that all the Authorities have passed the order without due application of mind and cryptic order has been passed. 14. Learned counsel submits that once there was variance in the inspection report dated 21.07.2017 and enquiry report dated 24.07.2017, then only on the basis of assumptions and presumptions, the order could not have been passed. 15. Learned counsel submitted that on the same subject- matter, criminal case has been registered and the same is yet to attain finality and as such, action of the respondents is vitiated in the eyes of law. 16. I have heard the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record. 17. This Court finds that the District Supply Officer has taken into account the reply filed by the petitioner. The District Supply Officer has clearly recorded a finding that the petitioner was not complying with the conditions of license and there was serious illegalities committed by him. 18. The Authorities, while considering the nature of allegation levelled against the petitioner and considering the enquiry report, came to conclusion that if the petitioner was indulging in unfair practice and he was not even maintaining the stock in proper manner, the Authority accordingly passed the order of cancellation of license of the petitioner. 19. 18. The Authorities, while considering the nature of allegation levelled against the petitioner and considering the enquiry report, came to conclusion that if the petitioner was indulging in unfair practice and he was not even maintaining the stock in proper manner, the Authority accordingly passed the order of cancellation of license of the petitioner. 19. This Court also finds that the Appellate Authority as well as the Revisional Authority have taken into account the irregularities committed by the petitioner and on overall analysis of the facts, came to conclusion that the petitioner was not complying with the conditions of the license. 20. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that non-speaking and cryptic order has been passed, suffice it to say by this Court that the Authorities have considered the irregularities committed by the petitioner while running the Fair Price Shop and the relevant material has also been taken into account. 21. This Court while exercising the power of writ jurisdiction cannot appreciate the facts and go into the disputed questions of fact, as whether, full compliance of instructions issued by the respondents, was made or not. 22. This Court does not find any error in the orders passed by the Authorities and the writ petition is accordingly dismissed.