Honble SHETHNA, J. – All the petitioners have challenged the notice/order dated 20.11.96 issued by the District Excise Officer in these petitions. It was issued in view of the fact that there was an alarming rate of increase in road accidents because of the drivers of heavy vehicles like trucks and luxury buses plying on the roads after consuming liquor from the liquor shops running on the main roads or highway. The licence of all the petitioners- shop owners is expiring in March, 1997. The grievance of the petitioners is that they have invested a lot of money in it and if they are asked to shift the shops immediately then they would suffer a great hardship because it will not be possible for them to find out the alternative accommodation immediately. These petitions have been vehemently objected by the respondent on several grounds viz., (i) that the petitioners have the alternative remedy by way of statutory appeal before the appellate authority against the impugned notice/order; (ii) this court should not exercise its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in view of the fact that many disputed questions of facts have been involved in this matter regarding location etc. ; (iii) the authority which had power to grant relaxation, the same can be withdrawn at any time; (iv) when the Court has to consider between the interest of individuals and the public, the public interest must prevailing and (v) no right much less fundamental right of the petitioners has been violated by the impugned notice/order, therefore, this Court should not exercise extra ordinary powers under Article 226 of the Constitu- tion of India. Lastly, it was submitted that this was a policy decision taken by the Government and the Court cannot exercise its powers over decision of the authority as sitting in judgment in appeal. (2). Learned counsel Shri Lodha for the petitioners in all these petitions vehemently submitted that after having granted relaxation, the District Excise Offi- cer could not withdraw the same. He submitted that the powers can be exercised only by the Commissioner of Excise and not by the District Excise Officer. He also submitted that the impugned notice/order is without jurisdiction, therefore, there is no question of availing of alternative remedy. It was also submitted by Mr. He submitted that the powers can be exercised only by the Commissioner of Excise and not by the District Excise Officer. He also submitted that the impugned notice/order is without jurisdiction, therefore, there is no question of availing of alternative remedy. It was also submitted by Mr. Lodha that respondent No.1 ordered for the shops on National and State Highway instead of that the District Excise Officer issued notice to all. He lastly submitted that before issuing such notice or taking decision, the petitioners were not heard and, therefore, it is in violation of principles of natural justice and liable to be set aside. It was also tried to be submitted that the order is not in confirmity with the licence, hence the same is bad. (3). I do not find any substance or merit in any of the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel Shri Lodha for the petitioners. Mr. R.P. Vyas learned counsel for the respondents was very much right in submitting that this Court shou- ld prefer public interest to the interest of individuals. It was pointed out that the rate of motor accidents on road was alarming and because of that though earlier relaxation was granted, the same was to be withdrawn and the impugned order/notice was to be passed. It is upto the State Government to run the administration and in my opinion unless and until it is pointed out that the action of the State Govern- ment is wholly arbitrary and unsustainable, the Court should not try to interfere with the same. No case is made out by the petitioners to interfere with such notice/order, which has been passed in public interest. (4). Many disputed questions of facts are involved in these petitions regarding location etc., which cannot be gone into and decided by this Court in its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners had the alternative remedy by way of appeal and instead of approaching this Court, they ought to have preferred the appeal before the appellate authority. My. Vyas, learned counsel appearing the respondents, was fully justified in submitting that no right much less fundamental right of the petitioners has been violated, therefore, this Court should not exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Mr. My. Vyas, learned counsel appearing the respondents, was fully justified in submitting that no right much less fundamental right of the petitioners has been violated, therefore, this Court should not exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Mr. Lodha was unable to point out that as to what fundamental right of the petitioners has been violated in these cases. It is true that the relaxation was granted in favour of the petitioners but that does not mean that the respondents are precluded for ever from re-considering the same. If, after thoughtful consideration it was decided to withdraw the concession then there was no need for the respondents to give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. If the authority has power to grant relaxation, the very authority will have power to withdraw that relaxation also. There is no question of breach of principles of natural justice in these cases, therefore, the submission that the decision was taken without affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, cannot be accepted. (5). The submission of Mr. Lodha that only Excise Commissioner has power to withdraw the relaxation has also got no substance. In fact, it was a joint decision and the District Excise Officer has only tried to implement the same by the impugned notice/order. (6). Lastly, it was submitted that the impugned order was not in confirmity with the conditions of licence. This submission has no substance. Nowhere in the licence it was provided that once the relaxation was given, it cannot be withdrawn thereafter. As stated earlier, the authority, who has power to give relaxation, can certainly withdraw the relaxation for which no opportunity is required to be given. (7). In view of the above discussion, I do not find any substance in any of the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Therefore, all these petitions are dismissed. (8). Before parting with the order, I must state that Mr. Lodha has tried to cite some authorities of the Supreme Court, which I have not referred to in this order as they had no relation to the facts of this case.