1 (WP 9866 of 2010) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.9866 OF 2010 Anjayya Karayya Anthati ….Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ….Respondents ----- Mr.D.S. Manerkar & Mr.S.D. Bhujbal for Petitioner Mr.R.M. Patne -AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 3 ----- CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED: 14TH JANUARY, 2011 P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and the learned AGP appearing on behalf of the State. 2. The Petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the RTO dated 18th October, 2010. Grievance of the Petitioner is that initially an order was passed by the RTO dated 9.9.2009 cancelling his licence. However, he preferred an appeal and the Appellate Court had set 2 (WP 9866 of 2010) aside the said order and allowed his appeal. It is submitted that thereafter the same order has been passed by the RTO. 3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State pointed out that while allowing the appeal, the Appellate Authority had observed that a fresh show cause notice can be issued against the Petitioner and any irregularity is found, suitable action shall be taken after issuing show cause notice and thereafter, the impugned order has been passed. He submitted that the Petitioner has alternate remedy to file an appeal against the said order. 4. There is much substance in the submission made by the learned AGP for the State. The RTO had passed the order in view of the liberty granted by the Appellate Authority in its earlier order. The Petitioner, therefore, 3 (WP 9866 of 2010) will have to first exhaust the alternate remedy which is available to him i.e. to file an appeal. 5. Hence this petition is not maintainable. Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. The Petitioner is at liberty to exhaust the alternate remedy which is available to him. If an appeal is filed by the Petitioner, within one week from today, the Commissioner shall decide the same on merits and in accordance with law. (V.M. KANADE J.)