IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16638 of 2009 1. MAHESH KANT JHA S/O BHAIYAJEE JHA R/O VILL.- DABHARI, P.S.- PANDAUL, DISTT.- MADHUBANI Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE MADHUBANI 3. SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER SADAR MADHUBANI 4. BLOCK SUPPLY OFFICER HARLAKHI AND MADHEPUR BLOCK, DISTT.- MADHUBANI ----------- 2. 6.12.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner, a P.D.S. licensee, is aggrieved by the order dated 9.8.2008, cancelling his licence for alleged violations of the terms and conditions as affirmed in appeal on 20.6.2009. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly acknowledges that two persons have deposed during inquiry that the petitioner was distributing two litres instead of three litres of Kerosene Oil. If that be correct, this Court cannot go into the sufficiency of the evidence in exercise of its power of judicial review. The Court shall only see whether there is evidence or do the findings suffer from perversity. On the own showing of the petitioner, the findings did not suffer from any perversity. The second ground was that the shop was found closed on the date of inspection. Reliance is placed on a decision reported in 2 1996(2) PLJR 53, to submit that cancellation of the licence for one day closure was too harsh a punishment. The Court in exercise of its power of judicial review is primarily concerned with the decision making process and not the final decision itself unless it suffers from grave arbitrariness, illogical or perversity. The petitioner acknowledges that he did not produce any evidence before the S.D.O. or the Collector in support of his plea that on the date of inspection he had gone to the State Bank for preparation of a Bank draft which was deposited the same day in the Block Development Office. If that be so, the petitioner has only to blame himself for the findings of the authority that his explanation on that account was not acceptable. Counsel for the State rightly submits that whether the punishment was excessive or not should be left to the authorities to decide. The petitioner is stated to be an agent of the State Government for distribution of essential commodities to the down trodden Section of society. The agency is governed by a statutory relationship. It shall be primarily for the Principal to decide if he wants to continue with the services of the agent or 3 not. The impugned order therefore calls for no interference by the Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction. To that extent, the writ application is dismissed. Notwithstanding the dismissal of the writ application, if the petitioner represents on the ground that the punishment was excessive not commensurate with the charges against him, nothing precludes the respondents from considering matters in their own wisdom in accordance with law, preferably without undue delay. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)