Rajiv Sharma, J. - (1.) HEARD Mr. Devendra Pratap Singh, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. H. P. Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that vide order dated 2.4.2008, Petitioner has been granted license to run FL5 shop at Maholiya Bye -pass. Thereafter, the opposite party No. 3 has cancelled the license of the Petitioner stating that illegal wine was recovered from his shop while no inspection was made by any of the opposite parties. Being aggrieved, he filed an appeal, which was rejected by the order dated 11.11.2010. Thereafter, revision filed by the Petitioner is also dismissed.
(2.) IT has been brought to the notice of the Court a finding of fact has been recorded by both the authorities below and as such no interference is required under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is not justified to reappraise the same by merely stating the findings of fact recorded by the authorities below were perverse. The above view is supported by the judgment rendered in, 1993 (suppl.) (4) SCC 1 O.T.M.O.M. Meyyapa Chettiar v. O.T.M.S.M. Kasi Viswanathan Chettiar and another relied upon by the Standing Counsel. In D. P. Maheshwari v. Delhi Administration and others, (1993) 4 SCC 293 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the nature of jurisdiction under Article 226 is supervisory and it is not open for the Court to exercise jurisdiction of the Trial Court or the Tribunals.
(3.) IT is well settled proposition of law that this Court in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India will not sit in appeal over the concurrent findings of facts arrived by the prescribed authority and Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashok Kumar and Ors. v. Sita Ram : (2001) 4 SCC 478 has held that: The position is too well settled to admit of any controversy that the finding of fact recorded by the final court of fact should not ordinarily be interfered with by the High Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction, unless the Court is satisfied that the finding is vitiated by manifest error of law or is penalty perverse. The High Court should not interfere with a finding of fact simply because it feels persuaded to take a different view on the material on record.;