JUDGMENT D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J : This appeal is by a commission agent who was working within the precincts of APMC Yard at Gulbarga and whose licence as commission agent to trade in the market yard came to be cancelled as per order dated 28-1-2012 passed by the secretary of the marketing committee on the complaint of third respondent - another market functionary within the very market yard. 2. The complaint was that the appellant who had purchased jowar worth of Rs. 3,75,200.46 from third respondent on 12-10-2011 and was to make payment for the same immediately, had not made payment, but had defaulted in making payment and therefore a dispute having been raised before the secretary of the market committee and in spite of the directions issued by the second respondent to settle the amount, that having not been done, notice had been issued and in the absence of appellant either making good the default or appearing or defending himself, the impugned order came to be passed. 3. It is questioning this order, the appellant has filed W.P. No 80816 of 2012, wherein a learned single Judge of this Court dismissed the petition as per order dated 21-2-2012, opining that there is no occasion to interfere in a matter of this nature and it is aggrieved by this order, dismissing the writ petition as well as the order passed by the market committee not only forfeiting the deposit but also cancelling the licence of the appellant, the present writ appeal. 4. After hearing Sri Umesh V. Mamadapur, learned Counsel for the appellant, Sri Santhosh Kumar and Sri Sanjay Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents 2 and 3 respectively, we do not find any merit at all to interfere in this writ appeal filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961. However, learned Counsel for the appellant, submits that appellant is ready to make good the amount, given some time etc. It is not for this Court to arbitrate over such matters, particularly payment or non-payment, but it is open to the appellant to make good the amount and seek restoration of his licence before the market committee on satisfying the market committee of his bona fides etc. 5. Except for the above observation, this appeal is dismissed. 6. It is not for this Court to arbitrate over such matters, particularly payment or non-payment, but it is open to the appellant to make good the amount and seek restoration of his licence before the market committee on satisfying the market committee of his bona fides etc. 5. Except for the above observation, this appeal is dismissed. 6. In view of dismissal of the appeal, pending application in IA-1/2012 for stay, does not survive for consideration and it is also dismissed accordingly. Appeal dismissed.