IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3 of 2006 Uma Shankar Thakur son of Kariman Thakur, Resident of Village Indoli Police Station Maharajganj, District-Siwan. … … Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The District Magistrate, Siwan. 3. The S.D.O. Maharajganj-cum-Licensing Authority, P.S. Maharajganj, District-Siwan. 4. The Block Supply Officer, Maharajganj, P. S. Maharajganj, District-Siwan. 5. The D.S.O., Siwan, P.S. Maharajganj, Siwan. 6. Abhay Singh son of Bhushan Singh, Prop. of M/s Singh Brothers, Maharajganj, P.S. Maharajganj, District-Siwan. …. … Respondents. ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. Hari Narayan Singh, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Himanshu Kumar Akela, A.C. to G.A.5. ------ 02/ 27.07.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the original order of Sub-Divisional Officer, Maharajganj as well as the appellate order of District Magistrate, Siwan cancelling kerosene oil retail Thela Licence bearing no.26 of 1991. The said orders were passed on 16.03.2005 and 07.06.2005 and this writ petition was filed on 02.01.2006. 3. The Bihar Trade Articles (Licences Unification) Order, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Bihar Licensing Order of 1984’ for the sake of brevity) was in force till the notification of the Government of Bihar, Food, Supply & Commerce Department Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as the Bihar Control Order of 2001) which was notified 2 vide G.S.R.No.01 dated 20.02.2007 when the said Bihar Control Order of 2001 came into force. In the said circumstances, the provisions of Bihar Licensing Order of 1984 are applicable to the facts and circumstances of this writ case which was filed in 2006 against the orders passed before coming into force of Bihar Control Order of 2001. 4. The said Bihar Licensing Order of 1984 provides an appeal under clause 28 thereof which forum has already been utilized by the petitioner. But there is another provision in the said Licensing Order of 1984, i.e. clause 29, which is with regard to revision against the appellate order. However, without utilizing the said forum the petitioner has moved this court. 5. Considering the aforesaid legal position, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw this writ petition with a liberty to move before the revisional authority as provided in the aforesaid clause, namely the Divisional Commissioner, Saran. 6. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty. It may be noted that this court has not gone into the merits of the case and hence the revisional authority will not be prejudiced by this order. Sunil/ ( S. N. Hussain, J.)