IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3157 of 2010 1. SIYARAM PRASAD ROY S/O LATE CHAITU ROY R/O VILL.- SIMALBARI, P.S.- BAISEE, DISTT.- PURNEA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER, PURNEA DIVISION PURNEA 3. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, PURNEA DISTT.- PURNEA 4. THE SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER, BAISEE DISTT.- PURNEA 5. THE DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER,PURNEA DISTT.- PURNEA 6. THE BLOCK SUPPLY OFFICER, BAISEE DISTT.- PURNEA 7. THE SUPPLY INSPECTOR, BAISEE DISTT.- PURNEA ----------- 2. 13.05.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the cancellation of his P.D.S. license dated 8.8.2008. A preliminary objection has been raised on behalf of the State with regard to the remedy of appeal and secondly with regard to inordinate delay in preferring the writ petition nearly 20 months later. In so far as the second objection is concerned, the delay certainly shall be a vital consideration as it is not known what has happened in the meantime. If the dealership of the petitioner has been awarded to another, third party rights may have accrued and it shall not be prudent for the Court to interfere with the same especially when such third person is not before the Court. In so far as objection with regard to maintainability of an alternative remedy is concerned, 2 the Court finds from the impugned order that there are no serious allegations of illegality/irregularity in discharge of duties as a P.D.S. dealer with regard to the distribution of food grains. The only indication of that explained in Item-3 of the impugned order with regard to the black marketing appears to be purely speculative not supported by any materials even with a brief consideration of facts in respect thereof. To bring the entire litigation to an end, the Court without interfering with the impugned order dated 8.8.2008, nonetheless grants liberty to the petitioner to represent before the authority who may consider the case in accordance with law in light of the present observations. The relationship being essentially that of a Principal and Agent, the Court is not persuaded to issue any mandamus to restore that the relationship except with the consent of the Principal. Let such consideration be done in the manner discussed within a maximum period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order before the licensing authority. The writ application stands disposed. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)