JUDGMENT By this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner seeks to challenge externment order dtd. 11.11.91 passed by the Respondent-District Magistrate, Ratlam filed as Annexure T to the petition. An objection raised by the respondent that an alternative statutory remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner which he has admittedly not availed of and the petition is liable to be dismissed on this short ground alone. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, however, urged that the petition having been admitted for its final hearing it should be decided on merits rather than dismissing it on a technical ground. It is for this reason that the contentions advanced by the learned counsel are being dealt with, otherwise petition was liable to be dismissed. It was strenuously urged on behalf of the petitioner that a show cause notice dated 20.3.91 was preceded by a similar notice dated 3.3.90 issued u/s 15 of the M.P. Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyan 1980 and it was contended that proceedings on the basis of said notice dated 3.3.90 ought to have been continued rather than issuing a fresh notice Annexure 'G' under the new Act. It was urged that the old Act of M.P. Rajya Suraksha Tatha Lok Vayastha Adhiniyam 1980 has not been repealed by the New Act No.4 of 1991. In this connection Sec. 140f the Act No.4 of 1991 was also referred to. The arguments advanced by the learned counsel overlook certain basic facts. It is not the question of repeal or saving of an Act either specifically or by implication. Going through the statement of objects and reasons of Act No.4 of 1991, as published in the M.P. Gazette Extra-ordinary dated 8.2.91, the term of M.P. Rajya Suraksha Tatha Lok Vyavastha Adhiniyam,1980, which was enacted for the purpose of maintenance of public order had expired; hence the need of fresh legislation on the subject and the result was the enactment of Act No.4 of 1991. No, legitimate grievance can be made against issuance of fresh notice under the New Act. The arguments advanced, involve an inherent fallacy, and must, therefore, be rejected. This petition, for the foregoing reasons is liable to be dismissed, it is accordingly dismissed. Plea of limitation on appeal to be unavailable. Petition dismissed.