JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Shri Birendra Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel. 2. Challenge in the writ petition is to the order dated 24.05.2024 passed by the District Magistrate, Banda, respondent no. 3, whereby in exercise of powers conferred by Rule 59 and 61 of the Uttar Pradesh Minor Mineral (Concession) Rules, 2021 on account of violation of the terms of the agreement between the parties, the mining lease of portion of plot no. 168 area 10 hectares for a period of five years from 29.09.2020 to 28.09.2025 has been cancelled and the petitioner has been blacklisted for a period of two years. 3. On a query by the Court as to why the petition should be entertained despite existence of a statutory alternative remedy of an appeal followed by a revision, which can be filed against the impugned order, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the matter pertaining to the same lease was already pending consideration at the revisional stage. 4. Upon hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and upon a perusal of the record, we find that the impugned order provides a new and fresh cause of action to the petitioner and, therefore, the contention that a revision pertaining to the same lease is pending at the revisional stage does not improve the petitioner's case. 5. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the petitioner. 6. Under the circumstances, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn leaving it open for the petitioner to avail the statutory alternative remedy available to her, in case, so advised.