IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1341 of 2011 CHANDRA SHEKHAR PURBE, SON OF LATE MAHENDRA PURBE, RESIDENT OF BITHAN, P.S. BITHAN, DISTRICT-SAMASTIPUR………..PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE EXCISE COMMISSIONER, BIHAR, VIKASH BHAWAN, PATNA. 3. THE COLLECTOR, SAMASTIPUR. 4. THE EXCISE SUPERINTENDENT, SAMASTIPUR. …………………………………………..RESPONDENTS. ----------- 2. 25.1.2011. Heard the parties. Learned counsel for the State has raised a preliminary objection that petitioner should have availed alternative remedy available to him by preferring revision before the Board of Revenue, Bihar, against the appellate order of the Commissioner (Excise). In view of the undisputed legal position that the Board of Revenue has jurisdiction to exercise revisional power in the matter, we are of the view that we should not examine the grievances of the petitioner that the order is illegal in view of the alternative remedy available to him. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of on account of preliminary objection noticed above. 2 Liberty is granted to the petitioner , if so advised, he may prefer revision application before the Board of Revenue against the appellate order of the Commissioner(Excise) dated 15.12.2010 passed in Excise Appeal No.38 of 2010, whereby he has upheld the order of the Collector, Samastipur, dated 3.11.2010, cancelling the excise license of the petitioner. If revision application is filed within two weeks from today alongwith limitation petition, the issue of limitation shall be considered sympathetically on account of pendency of the writ petition before this Court. The revision application should be considered on merits if it is filed within two weeks. P.S./Sanjay-II ( Shiva Kirti Singh, J) ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J)