1. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.-This is a petition for leave to appeal against the order dated 17-8-76 of the Lahore High Court dismissing the petitioner's Writ Petition No. 2073 of 1976 arising out of the cancellation of authorisation of his depot in District Campbellpnr.
2. The petitioner filed two separate appeals against these orders, which were dismissed by a single order on 15-4-76 and a revision to the Govern--ment also failed on 19-7-76. In his writ petition filed to challenge these orders the petitioner contended that there was not sufficient material before the authorities-for a finding against him and that in respect of one of the allegations, namely, that he had not displayed the notice board as required by para. 4 of the authorisation the position was that such a notice board did exist. A learned Judge of the High Court refused to interfere on the ground that the findings of fact recorded by the authorities could not be interfered with in writ jurisdiction and that the appreciation of evidence was also not permissible under Article 199 of the Constitution as held by this Court in Mohammad Hussain etc v. Sikandar etc. (PLD1974SC139.). .
3. So far as the findings recorded by the authorities are concerned we are in agreement with the High Court that the findings of fact could not successfully be gone into in writ jurisdiction, especially when the finding of fact is based on some material before the authority recording it.
4. So far as the contention in respect of the two orders of the District Magistrate of the same date i.e. 24-2-76 is concerned, we find that this point has not been taken before the appellate and revisional authority. In the writ petition a ground to this effect was taken but it seems that it was not raised at the time of arguments, for it does not find a mention in the order of the High Court. Be as it may, each order of the District Magistrate is to the same effect and results in the cancellation of the petition--er's authorisation. The contention that the District Magistrate had become functus officio, even if it is accepted would be of no avail because the first order also cancelled his authorisation. Secondly, there is no inconsistency between the orders and it appears that the two orders were probably necessi--tated because action had commenced against the petitioner on the basis of the general inspection which revealed irregularities being committed by him and also on the basis of general complaint by the general public. It is not the case of the petitioner that his authorisation was cancelled in an illegal manner or in violation of the principles of natural justice.
5. Indeed it would be difficult for him to so contend because he has been heard even by the appellate and revisional authority.
6. The upshot is that there is no force in this petition which is accordingly dismissed.