JUDGMENT Gokulakrishnan, O.CJ.- This writ appeal is against the order of Nainar Sundaram, J., dated 7th April, 1982 made in Writ Petition No. 2714 of 1982. In the writ petition, the appellant herein prayed for the issue of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order directing the second and third respondents to supply the requisite arrack to arrack shop No. 10, Chengalpattu (East). The appellant was granted a retail licence to vend arrack toddy in Survey No. 36511, which is a patta land. In view of the pendency of a writ petition filed by one Radhakrishnan, the appellant herein opened the shop only on 5th December, 1981. The licence issued to the appellant definitely states that the Mcencee should vacate the licensed site if any reasonable objection is raised, and he should select an alternative site. Subsequently, there was objection for running the arrack shop in the said survey number 36511, and the Assistant Commissioner, Excise, directed the appellant herein to select an alternative unobjectionable place for carrying on the arrack business. This order was passed on 20th February, 1982. It is the case of the respondent that since the appellant was requesting extension of time for selecting an alternative unobjectionable place to do the arrack business, the Commissioner, Excise was permitting the supply of arrack to the shop of the appellant till 19th March, 1982 and again till 24th March, 1982. In spite of such extension of time, the appellant did not select an unobjectionable place for carrying on the arrack business, and on the other hand, he preferred a revision to the Government against the order of the Assistant Commissioner and also filed a stay application along with the revision. Pending disposal of the revision and the stay application, the appellant herein filed the writ petition for the above said relief. The learned single Judge of this Court (Nainar Sundaram, J.), after observing that the appellant could as well approach the Government for appropriate relief, dismissed the writ petition. It is as against this order, the present writ appeal has been filed. 2. Mr. The learned single Judge of this Court (Nainar Sundaram, J.), after observing that the appellant could as well approach the Government for appropriate relief, dismissed the writ petition. It is as against this order, the present writ appeal has been filed. 2. Mr. Selvaraj, learned counsel, for the appellant submits that unless the licence in his favour is cancelled, the appellant is entitled to get the supply of arrack, and the Government having supplied arrack till 24th March, 1982, must continue to supply the same since the appellant has paid the necessary kist which comes to Rs. 45,311 per month. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader submits that the Government cannot be directed to supply arrack for sale in an objectionable place and that the licence itself clearly prohibits sale of arrack in such an objectionable place. He also submits that there is a specific provision in the licence granted to the appellant that the licensee should vacate the licenced site if any reasonable objection is raised, and he should select an alternative unobjectionable site. In this connection the learned Government Pleader submits that if such supply is directed to be made, it will directly violate rule 12 of the Tamil Nadu Arrack (Retail Shop) Rules, 1981. 3. We have carefully gone through the relevant records in this case. As long back as 20th February, 1982, the Assistant Commissioner after mentioning the several objections raised in respect of the situation of the arrack shop in Survey No. 36511, directed the appellant herein to shift the shop to an unobjectionable place. The appellant seems to have requested for extension of time to shift the arrack shop and that is why, it is submitted by the learned Government Pleader, that arrack was supplied to the appellant's shop till 24th March, 1982. Mr. Selvaraj, learned counsel for the appellant pointing to rule 20 of the said Rules submitted that until the licence is cancelled, supply of arrack has to be made. We are not able to appreciate this argument. It is clear from rule 12, that arrack should be sold only in the shop where it is permitted to be sold. Mr. Selvaraj, learned counsel for the appellant pointing to rule 20 of the said Rules submitted that until the licence is cancelled, supply of arrack has to be made. We are not able to appreciate this argument. It is clear from rule 12, that arrack should be sold only in the shop where it is permitted to be sold. When once the situation of the shop is declared as an objectionable one and the licensee is directed to shift the shop, no supply of arrack could be made to a shop which is declared to be situated in an objectionable place. If such supply is made, it will be in contravention of rule 12 of the said Rules. In the circumstances, cancellation of the licence need not precede the stopping of supply of arrack to the shop which is declared to be situated in an objectionable place. The respondents after careful consideration found that the appellant herein has to shift the place of business, and the appellant having obtained sufficient time for shifting the place of business, cannot now come forward and say that unless the licence is cancelled, the supply cannot be interrupted. The remedy for the appellant lies with the Government in the revision petition, and this Court cannot in the teeth of rule 12 and also the conditions specified in the licence, direct the Government to supply arrack to a shop considered by the Government as situated in an objectionable place. For all these reasons, the writ appeal is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs in this appeal. 4. Mr. Selvaraj submits that in spite of the fact that the appellant has filed a revision to the Government and has also prayed for stay, the revision petition has not yet been disposed of by the Government. We direct the Government to dispose of the revision petition filed by the appellant herein within two weeks from this date without in any way being influenced by any of the observations made in this judgment. S.J. ----- Appeal dismissed.