IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12755 of 2007 BHAGWAT SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 2 27.10.2009. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner is retailed licensee under the Unification Order 1983. He is aggrieved by order of cancellation of licence dated 11.3.2006, passed by the SDO, Aurangabad. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that aforesaid order has been passed in teeth of various representations made by the villagers to S.D.O., Navinagar stating therein that the allegations levelled against the petitioner is false. Learned counsel has drawn my attention to annexures 2, 3, 4 and 5 in respect of same. He submits that vide annexure 2 villagers have stated that Supply officer without making enquiry of the shop or person available there has levelled allegations against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the State submits that the petitioner in stead of rushing to this Court, should have resorted to alternative remedy of appeal available in Section 28 of the Bihar Trade Articles (Licences Unification) Order, 1984. The writ petition is disposed of with observation that the petitioner should avail the remedy of appeal before the appropriate authority. It would be open to the petitioner to plead before the appellate authority for condoning the delay as he was pursing his remedy before this court. Shashi. (Samarendra Pratap Singh,J).