JUDGMENT Satish Chandra, C.J. - The petitioners sell drugs and medicines either in wholesale or in retail. They challenge the levy of octroi duty by the respondents Nagar Mahapalika. 2. Previously octroi was leviable on drugs. Subsequently, the State Govt, exempted certain commodities from the levy of octroi. By notification dated 27th August, 1977 (Annexure 1 to the writ petition) the Governor exempted druges, as defined in that notification, from the levy of octroi. The object was that the drugs may be available to the public at cheaper rates. The Govt, issued another notification on 18th August, 1978. By this notification the exemption from octroi was confined to only those drugs which had borne excise duty. The State Govt, issued yet another notification on 21st September. 1978 saying that by virtue of the exemption granted by the notification dated 27th August, 1977 the income of the local bodies has considerably fallen and so the exemption granted to druges is wit drawn with immediate effect and local authorities are empowered to levy octroi on them. It is the effect of this notification dated 21st September, 1978 which is in controversy. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that by the notification dated 21st Sept. 1978 the Stale Govt, cancelled its earlier notification dated 27th August, 1977. It has not affected the intervening notification dated 18th August, 1978. The submission is misconceived. By the notification dated 27th August, 1977 the Governor had granted exemption to all kinds of drugs from the levy of octroi. By the impugned notification dated 21st September, 1971. notification dated 27th August, 1977 has been cancelled. The inevitable result is that the exemption on drugs has disappeared totally. In this context it was wholly unnecessary to refer or to cancel the intervening notification of 18th August, 1978, because that notification only modifies the liability of drugs to octroi in some respects, viz., it confined levy of duty only on such drugs which had not borne excise duty. Since the basic notification exempting drugs from the levy of octroi was being cancelled, it was not at all necessary specifically to cancel the notification by which the levy was confined to non excisable drugs. The latest notification cancels all exemption in relation to drugs, be excisable, or otherwise. Since the basic notification exempting drugs from the levy of octroi was being cancelled, it was not at all necessary specifically to cancel the notification by which the levy was confined to non excisable drugs. The latest notification cancels all exemption in relation to drugs, be excisable, or otherwise. The exemption on drugs as a whole has been cancelled and the local authorities have been empowered to levy octroi on drugs without any sped fide reservation. Hence, the effect of the notification dated 21st September, 1978 clearly is that the Nagar Mahapalika. Allahabad, respondent, was entitled to levy octroi on drugs with effect from 21st Sept., 1978 irrespective of the fact whether the drugs is one which borne excise duty or not. 4. Learned counsel complained that the Nagar Mahapalika authorities are levying octroi on drugs which had actually borne the excise duty even prior to 21-9-79. This they did from July, 1978 onwards. They wen-not entitled to levy octroi on such drugs. In the counter-affidavit is has been stated that the petitioner did not file proper evidence to show that the drugs have borne excise duty. The petitioners have an alternative remedy of appeal under the statute. Since there is a dispute on facts, it is a f t case where the petitioners should be left to their statutory remedy. 5. In the result, the petition is misconceived and is accordingly dismissed with costs.