IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C. REV. No.45 of 2009 DILIP KUMAR RAVIDAS son of late Bhagwat Ravidas, resident of village-Phulwariya, P.O.-Korama, P.S.Hilsa, District-Nalanda, Bihar.. ..Writ Petitioner, Appellant/Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, 2. The District Magistrate (Collector) Nalanda, District, Nalanda, 3. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Hilsa, District- Nalanda, 4. The Block Supply Officer, Hilsa, District-Nalanda, 5. The Parmanand Paswan, son of Chandika Paswan, resident of Village-Bhareti, P.O.-Yogipur, P.S.- Hilsa, District- Nalanda. Holding Licence No.2/96 of Badhunoura Panchayat, P.S. Hilsa, District- Nalanda.. … Writ Respondents, Respondents in L.P.A./Opposite parties. For the Petitioner: M/s. Indu Shekhar Prasad Singh, Sr. Advocate & Deo Raj Kr. Prasad, Advocate For the State: None ……………………….. 4 11.01.2011 Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner. The order under review was passed by a Division Bench of this Court dismissing Letters Patent Appeal No.18 of 2009 on the ground that the writ court had taken a correct stand in dismissing the writ petition of the petitioner on account of delay of 2 eight years in preferring the same to challenge an order passed in 1998 cancelling his licence for running a shop under public distribution system. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has argued that delay is not material when an order does not create rights in third parties or the interest of the third parties have not come into existence. He has placed reliance upon a large number of judgments in support of that plea. There is no dispute with the aforesaid legal principle, but in the facts of the case, the writ Court and Division Bench took a contrary view and we find no good ground to take a different view. Licence under the public distribution system is granted so that public distribution system works efficiently. The petitioner did not challenge the cancellation of his licence for eight years and in the meantime the authorities had to grant licence to others so that public distribution may not suffer. A private respondent has, therefore, been impleaded in this application also. In the facts of the case, we do not find 3 any merit in this review application. It is, accordingly, dismissed. Sanjay-II (Shiva KIrti Singh, J) ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J)