( 1 ) THIS petition under Art. 227 of the, Constitution, involves a question relating to the jurisdiction of the Revenue Appellate Tribunal to make the impugned order. ( 2 ) THE facts leading up to the petition are these: The petitioner applied for a licence for the sale of Indian and Foreign liquors under the provisions of the karnataka Excise (Sale of Indian and Foreign Liquors) rules, 1968. The licence was asked for the year 1973-74. The Dy. Commr. of the district before whom the application was made, sought the approval of the Commr. of Excise for the grant of the licence The Commr. by his order dt 10th July 1973 stated thus :" Sanction is accorded under Rule 5 of the Mysore Excise (Sale of indian and Foreign Liquors) Rules 1968 for the issue of a Bar licence under Rule 3 (9) (a) and (b) in favour of Sri V. Nagaraj at premises no. L-4, Ashoka Road, Mysore, for the year 1973-74, as recommended by the Deputy Commissioner (Excise) Mysore. "pursuant to the said sanction, the Deputy Commr. granted the licence to the petitioner. Aggrieved by the above order of the Commr. , Respondent 1 preferred an appeal to the Karnataka Revenue Appellate Tribunal. The main complaint of Respondent 1 before the Tribunal was that he is the owner of the premises in respect of which the licence has been granted and his complaint has not been investigated by the Dy. Commr. before granting the licence. The Tribunal by its order dt. 17th May 1974, upheld the said contention and set aside the licence issued to the petitioner. Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, the petitioner has approached this court for relief under Art. 227 of the Constn. ( 3 ) THOUGH there are several contentions urged by Counsel on both sides, in my view it is not necessary to consider all of them since the petitioner has to succeed solely on the lack of jurisdiction of the Tribunal to make the order. The appeal before the Tribunal was under S. 61 of the karnataka Excise Act, 1965 It reads :"61. Appeals- * * * " sec. 61 (1) provides for appeal to the Dy. Commr. against an order passed by any officer other than the Excise Commr. or the Dy. Commr. under the Act. The appeal before the Tribunal was under S. 61 of the karnataka Excise Act, 1965 It reads :"61. Appeals- * * * " sec. 61 (1) provides for appeal to the Dy. Commr. against an order passed by any officer other than the Excise Commr. or the Dy. Commr. under the Act. S. 61 (2) provides for appeal against an order made by the Deputy commr. S. 61 (3) is most relevant for our purpose It states that " any person aggrieved by an order passed by the Excise Commr. under sub-sec. (2), may. . . . . . . . appeal to the Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal ". It is clear therefrom that appeal lies from an appellate order of the Excise, Commissioner and not from his original order. The appeal to the Tribunal is therefore a second appeal against the order of the Deputy Commissioner. ( 4 ) LET me now see whether the order appealed against in the present case, was an order of the Excise Commr. under S. 61 (2 ). Evidently, it was not so. It was only a sanction accorded by the Commr. under Rule 5 of the Karnataka Excise (Sale of Indian and Foreign Liquors) Rules, 1968. Pursuant to the sanction, it was for the Dy. Commr. to grant the licence. What is appealable under the Act is only the order granting the licence and not an order according sanction for the grant of licence; besides the order according sanction by the Commr. was not made in his appellate powers under S. 61 (2) of the Act. In any view of the matter, the appeal before the Tribunal was wholly incompetent. ( 5 ) IN the result, the petition is allowed, and the impugned order of the tribunal is quashed. No costs. --- *** --- .