Judgment 1. These five civil writ jurisdiction cases have been heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgment. C. W. J. C. No. 2652 of 1976 is for quashing Annexure 2, and order dated the 9.11.1976 cancelling the licence of the petitioner of that case, as well as the notice (Annexure 1) dated the 11.10.1976 calling upon him why his licence should not be cancelled. In the other four cases prayer has been for quashing notices calling upon the petitioner in each case to show cause why his licence be not cancelled. The petitioners of all the cases are dealers in cloths and licensees under Bihar Cotton, Cloth and Yarn Control Order, 1956. It appears that godown of one Banwari Lal Sah was raided on 1st April, 1974 and 392 bales of cotton cloth and five bales of woollen cloth were seized. The petitioners claim that most of these bales belonged to them. They had stored them in the godowns of Banawari Lal Sah as they had no sufficient space in their shops which are situated in Suaganj Bazar in the town of Bhagalpur. The ground given in the notices for cancelling the licences of the petitioner is that there was a criminal case pending against the petitioners for they had not notified the place where they had stored their cloths. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner have urged that there is nothing in the Cloth and Yarn Control Order or in the contents of licences issued to the petitioner requiring them to notify the place of storage of their stock and as such the notices were misconceived and the authorities issuing them had no jurisdiction to issue them. 2. It has been urged on behalf of the State that in view of Cl. 3 of the said Order read with the licence in Form B, the petitioners were required to notify the place of storage of their stock and that was to be dated in the licence itself. It has been pointed out that according to Cl. 2. It has been urged on behalf of the State that in view of Cl. 3 of the said Order read with the licence in Form B, the petitioners were required to notify the place of storage of their stock and that was to be dated in the licence itself. It has been pointed out that according to Cl. 4(3) of the Order the petitioners were required to have a licence in Form B. It has further been urged on behalf of the State that in view of Article 226, as it stands after the recent amendment (42nd amendment of the Constitution) which has come into effect from 1st February, 1977, the writ applications of the petitioners were not maintainable and no relief could be granted to them. As in our opinion there is substance in the contention that the writ applications of the petitioners are not maintainable after the amendment of Art. 226, we do not consider it necessary to go into the question whether the petitioners were required to notify the place of storage of their stocks and licences issued to them were liable to be cancelled on the ground that they were storing stock of their cloth at a place which was not notified and not mentioned in the licence. Under Art. 226 (1) of the Constitution (as it stands after amendment), a High Court can issue a writ. "(a) for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by the provisions of Part III; or (b) for the redress of any injury of a substantial nature by reason of the contravention of any other provision of this Constitution or any provision of any enactment or ordinance or any order, rule, regulation, bye-law or other instrument made thereunder; or (c) for the redress of any injury by reason of any illegality in any proceedings by or before any authority under any provision referred to in sub-cl. (b) where such illegality has resulted in substantial failure of justice." 3. Clause (3) of the amended Article 226 provides that- "No petition for the redress of any injury referred to in sub-cl. (b) or sub-cl. (c) of Cl. (b) where such illegality has resulted in substantial failure of justice." 3. Clause (3) of the amended Article 226 provides that- "No petition for the redress of any injury referred to in sub-cl. (b) or sub-cl. (c) of Cl. (1) shall be entertained if any other remedy for such redress is provided for by or under any other law for the time being in force." According to S.58 of the Constitution (42nd Amendment) Act, 1976 which has amended Art. 226 as aforesaid even the pending petitions under Art. 226 are to be governed and to be dealt with in accordance with the provision of that Article as it stands after amendment. We assume in favour of the petitioner that them has been an illegality in the proceedings which has been started against the petitioners by calling upon them to show cause why their licences should not be cancelled but we do not think that such illegality has resulted in any injury to the petitioners much less any substantial failure of justice except perhaps in the case of petitioner of C. W. J. C. No. 2652 of 1976 whose licence already stands cancelled, so long the licence of the petitioners of other cases has not been cancelled, no injury has been caused to them. Really the notice is for their benefit following the rule of natural justice. If no such notice would have been issued, they would have come and made a grievance that the rule of natural justice has not been followed. The writ applications of the petitioners other than C. W. J. C. No. 2652 of 1976 are therefore, not maintainable. It has been vehemently urged on behalf of the petitioners that there has been substantial failure of justice in the cases as the notices were issued after application of the petitioners for quashing the criminal prosecution started against them were admitted by this Court and stay was granted to them. We do not think that the admission of the criminal cases of the petitioners for quashing criminal prosecution against them by this Court has got anything to do with injury to the petitioners on account of issuing show cause notice to them or any substantial failure of justice. 4 C. W. J. C. No. 2652 of 1976 is also not maintainable on account of the fact that Cl. 4 C. W. J. C. No. 2652 of 1976 is also not maintainable on account of the fact that Cl. (6) of the said Order provides for an appeal against an order cancelling a licence and the petitioner of that case has not availed of that alternative remedy. In view of Cl. (3) of Art. 226, his writ application can not be entertained. Similar would have been the case of the petitioners of other cases even if their licences would have been cancelled. Their writ application also could not have been entertained by this Court unless they would have availed of the alternative remedy of appeal against the order of cancellation. 5. For the reasons as stated above, we find that all these applications cannot be entertained and they are accordingly dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.