HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA W.P. No. 17520 of 2011 DATED: 01.07.2011 Between: Toddy Cooperative Society .. Petitioner And The Deputy Commissioner of Proh. And Excise and two others .. Respondents O R D E R:- The petitioner asserts that the 2nd respondent-Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, Mancherial, without considering his representation dated 05.05.2011 for sending the second sample bottle to an independent chemical laboratory, cancelled his licence of toddy Depot bearing No.A2/1/2007 dated 18.10.2007 and its constituent toddy shops 1 to 10 bearing licence Nos.A2/31/2007 to A2/40/2007, dated 01.10.2007 respectively sanctioned in favour of the petitioner. Then the petitioner preferred an appeal before the 1st respondent against the order of the 2nd respondent. Now, the petitioner’s grievance is that the 1st respondent, by his order dated 20.05.2011 rejected the appeal. Hence, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking appropriate directions. The learned Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 has submitted that the petitioner has alternative statutory remedy of filing an appeal as contemplated under Section 63 of the A.P. Excise Act, and as he has not exhausted the alternative remedy, the writ petition is not maintainable. In view of the submission made by the learned Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise, that the petitioner has not exhausted the alternative remedy as may be available to him under law, the writ petition is not maintainable, and the same is accordingly, dismissed. However, the petitioner may, if he is so advised, prefer an appeal before the appellate authority. In case an appeal is filed within a period of two weeks from today, the appellate authority shall consider the appeal and condone the delay in preferring such appeal sympathetically as the petitioner has been prosecuting his case before this Court. No order as to costs. _____________________ ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, J 01.07.2011 bcj