JUDGMENT S. B. Sinha, J. The petitioners in this application have, inter alia, questioned an order dated 8.10.96 passed by the Additional District Magistrate (General), Murshidabad, whereby and whereunder the petitioners' application for renewal of licence under the West Bengal Excise Act, 1909, was rejected. 2. The petitioners had filed application for renewal of licence, but the same was not being considered, as a result whereof the petitioners approached this court under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India and the said application was marked as C.O. No. 4984 (W) of 1996. By reason of an order dated 24.4.96, a learned single Judge of this Court upon taking into consideration the statements made in the writ application, directed as follows : "In the aforesaid circumstances, the later part of the impugned order dated 25.3.96 passed by the respondent No.3 herein ordering that the petitioners' licence for Pachwai shop at the present premises on plot No.611 within Mouza and P.S. Beldanga should not be renewed beyond its existing term, which was going to expire on 31st March 1996 be hereby set aside. It would, however, be open to the authorities concerned to consider the said question as and when any application for renewal of licence at the said premises is made by the petitioners, which may be disposed of by it in due exercise of its discretion according to law. The writ application is accordingly disposed of without any order as to costs." Pursuant to the said order, the impugned order has been passed, wherein it was noticed : "Shri Bangshi Badan Saha appeared today before me for self and on behalf of his mother for hearing in the above matter. He failed to produce any documentary evidence showing permanent road for access to plot no.611 of mouza Beldanga J. L. No. 51 P.S. Beldanga. During hearing Sri Bangshi Badan Saha stated that at present there is no road for access to plot no. 611 of mouza Beldanga. He also stated that Beldanga Pachwai shop was run on the said plot for several years when the customers used to enter into the shop premises through adjacent vacant land but consequent upon erection of boundary wall by the owners of the adjacent plots, the entry of the customers into the premises situated on plot no. 611 by above manner was stopped. 611 by above manner was stopped. It has also been reported by the Block Land and Land Reforms Office Beldanga-I Block that there is no permanent road for entry to plot no.611 of mouza Beldanga as per records and mouza map and the plot is not accessible to the customers if Pachwai is opened thereon. From the above, it is clear that the premises offered for grant of Pachwai licence i.e. plot no. 611 of mouza-Beldanga J. L. no. 51, P. S. Beldanga, Dist. Murshidabad is inaccessible to the customers. In the circumstances, the customers will not be able to enter into the said premises for consumption of Pachwai, if Pachwai licence as prayed is granted and thus the purpose of grant of the Pachwai licence will be totally frustrated. In view of these the prayer made by Shri Bangshi Badan Saha and Smt. Kanaklata Saha for grant of Pachwai licence on plot no. 611 of mouza-Beldanga J. L. no. 51, P.S. Beldanga, Dist. Murshidabad for the year 1996-97 is rejected as the site offered as mentioned above is not suitable for opening of a Pachwai Shop for the reason mentioned above." 3. Mr. Sen, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the impugned order has not been passed in accordance with law, in as much as, the question as to whether the petitioners and/or others have easementory right over a small path for the purpose of egress and ingress to the premises in question, is a question of fact and the same could not have been taken into consideration by the concerned authority. Learned counsel submits that in this situation an appeal would not sub-serve the ends of justice and in support of his aforementioned contention, reliance has been placed in the case of Calcutta Discount Company vs. I. T. Officer, reported in AIR 1961 SC 372 and in the case of Union of India vs. R. Redappa reported in 1993(4) SCC 269 . It is now well known that right to deal in liquors is not a fundamental right, but is merely a privilege. Such a privilege is controlled by the provisions of the said Act. It is now well known that right to deal in liquors is not a fundamental right, but is merely a privilege. Such a privilege is controlled by the provisions of the said Act. While passing an order on account of renewal of licence, the licensing authority is not only to take into consideration the factors relating to revenue, but also may have to take into consideration the interest and/or facility of the consumers. Licences are granted or renewed only in terms of the provisions of the said Act. Subsection (2) of s. 8 of the Bengal Excise Act, 1909 states that the orders passed under the said Act or any Rule made thereunder, shall be appealable. Subsection (3) of s. 8 empowers the State Government to revise any order passed by the Collector, Excise Commissioner or the Commissioner of a Division or by an officer exercising appellate power. The said Act, it is not disputed, is a self-contained Code, and in that view of the matter, in my opinion, it is not a fit case in which this court should exercise its jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India without having the opinion of the statutory authorities before it. In Calcutta Discount Company's case (supra), the Apex Court was considering the question of jurisdiction of the assessing authority to pass an order in terms of s. 34( 1A) of the Income Tax Act, and in that context, it was observed that the condition precedent for assumption of jurisdiction under s. 34 was not satisfied. The said matter was entertained by the High Court and the matter 'was fully heard., The petitioner also approached the court at the earliest opportunity. In Union of India vs. R. Redappa (supra), the Supreme Court was considering a matter relating to a service wherein services of the petitioner had been dismissed without holding an enquiry. The Apex Court held in the facts of that case that the Central Administrative Tribunal could have granted appropriate relief upon having come to the conclusion that there had been no material on which a reasonable person could have come to the conclusion as is envisaged in Rule 14(ii) of the Railway Servants' (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968, so as to enable the disciplinary authority to dispense with the formal disciplinary proceedings. In that case, more than a decade had elapsed, and in that situation, the Apex Court observed: "True the jurisdiction exercised by the High Court under Art. 226 or the tribunal is not as wide as it is in appeal or revision but once the court is satisfied of injustice or arbitrariness then the restriction, self-imposed or statutory, stands removed and no rule or technicality on exercise of power, can stand in way of rendering justice." 4. It is now well known that if in a case the writ petition is entertained, availability of alternative remedy may not be held to be a bar in adjudicating the matter on merits. However, the question as to whether the court should exercise its discretionary jurisdiction or not, should be considered at the threshold. In the instant case there exists a disputed question of fact. In support of his contention, certain photographs have been produced before this court to show that the order passed by the Additional District Magistrate is factually incorrect. As noticed hereinbefore even the petitioners claim a right of easement in respect of a small pathway, such a question can be raised more efficaciously before the appellate court which would be entitled to go into the question of fact. 5. This court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, is not concerned with the decision but is concerned with the decision making process. It may further be mentioned that recently in CESC Limited vs. N.M. Banka & Anr., Civil Appeal No. 14421 of 1996, disposed of on 21.11.96, the Apex Court observed: "When the consumer approached the Court, the Court should have declined to intervene in the matter and should have directed the consumer to avail of the statutory remedy." In this view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the question raised in this application being essentially a question of fact, and further in view of the fact that Bengal Excise Act is a self-contained Code, this writ application should not be entertained on the ground of availability of an alternative remedy. 6. Mr. Sen apprehends that the appeal might have become barred by limitation. 6. Mr. Sen apprehends that the appeal might have become barred by limitation. In that event, the petitioners would be entitled to file an appropriate application and the appellate authority may consider the desirability of passing an appropriate order keeping in view the fact that the petitioners were legally advised to approach this court in its writ jurisdiction on the ground that this court had earlier entertained a writ application, and the matter had been pending in this court from 8.1.97. 7. The application is disposed of with the aforementioned observations and directions. 8. Let plain copy of the operative portion of this order countersigned by the Assistant Registrar (Court) be given to the learned counsel for the petitioners, on usual undertaking. Application disposed at.