S. K. KESHOTE, J. ( 1 ) THE matters were called out in the first round, second round and lastly in the third round, but none put appearance on behalf of the parties. Perused the Special civil Applications. ( 2 ) AS these two Special Civil Applications have been filed by one and the same petitioner, they are taken up for decision together, and are being disposed by this common order. ( 3 ) THE petitioners are challenging the validity and legality of the order dated 2. 3. 1984 of the Deputy Secretary, Food and Civil Supplies Department, Gujarat State, gandhinagar in Revision Application No. 183/93. The petitioners father was granted licence and agency of Indane Gas on 27th October, 1985. Father of the petitioner was carrying on the business till 18. 4. 1990. The petitioners father expired on 18. 4. 1990. Under the will executed by the father of the petitioner, the agency was to be transferred in the name of two sons, the only survivors, the petitioners herein. The petitioners submitted that Indian Oil Corporation has transferred the agency in the name of the present petitioners and agreement to that effect was executed on 23rd March, 1993. After grant of the aforesaid agency the petitioners made application to the Collector and District Civil supplies Officer, to issue revised licence in the name of the present petitioners. This application was stated to be sent on 20th April, 1990 under certificate of posting. Reminder was sent by the petitioner to the aforesaid application on 5. 8. i 992. Under letter dated 22. 2. 1993 of the respondents, the petitioners were called upon to comply with the requisition made there and the petitioners complied with the same. Thereafter, the petitioners prayed for revising/renewal of licence vide application dated 29. 3. 1993. During the processing of the aforesaid application the petitioners business premises were visited by the Inspector from the Office of the Collector. On inspection it was found that the licence is not renewed and the Inspector reported that the petitioners are carrying on business of gas agency without any valid licence. In addition to that other discrepancies were also found. Proceedings for cancellation of the licence was initiated and under order dated 23rd March, 1993 the licence of the petitioners came to be cancelled, which was in the name of their father. In addition to that other discrepancies were also found. Proceedings for cancellation of the licence was initiated and under order dated 23rd March, 1993 the licence of the petitioners came to be cancelled, which was in the name of their father. Further order has been made for forfeiture of the amount of security deposit. Against this order the petitioners filed appeal on 27th April, 1993. However, interim relief was granted, but ultimately the appeal came to be dismissed under order dated 17th September, 1993 of the appellate authority. Against that order the petitioner preferred revision application before the State Governmenl and during the pendency of the revision application also interim relief has been granted in their favour. On 23rd March, 1994 that revision application was dismissed and hence this Special Civil application. ( 4 ) THE Special Civil Application was admitted by this Court on 11. 4. 1994, and the following order has been passed : ,"rule, the learned counsel for the petitioner will supply typed copies of all annexures. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not press for interim relief. Hence no order is passed as regards interim relief. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner has made an application annexure-E for grant of fresh licence. If such application for grant of fresh licence is otherwise maintainable, and is in accordance with law, the authorities will decide the same on merits as expeditiously as possible, preferably on or before 31. 5. 1994. " ( 5 ) AFTER the aforesaid order, advocate of the petitioner has sent letter along with enclosures to the licensing authority on 22. 4. 1994. The documents were submitted by the petitioner on 8. 5. 1994 to the licensing authority. The site was visited by the Mamlatdar, statement of the petitioner was recorded and certain other details were submitted. The licensing authority passed order on 30th May, 1994 under which the application of the petitioner dated 29th March, 1993 has been rejected. SCA 8450/94 : in this Special Civil Application the petitioner has challenged the aforesaid order dated 30th May, 1994. This Special Civil Application has come up for hearing before this court on 30th June, 1994, and this Court passed the following order :"rule. To be heard along with Special Civil Application No. 3384 of 1994. The learned counsel for the petitioner does not press for interim relief. This Special Civil Application has come up for hearing before this court on 30th June, 1994, and this Court passed the following order :"rule. To be heard along with Special Civil Application No. 3384 of 1994. The learned counsel for the petitioner does not press for interim relief. Hence no order is passed as regards interim relief. "so the petitioners did not press for interim reliefs. ( 6 ) SO far as the first Special Civil Application is concerned, it no more survives in view of the subsequent order of the respondents dated 30th May, 1994 under which the application filed by the petitioner for grant of licence has been rejected. In the first petition challenge has been made by the petitioners to the orders which have been passed against them on the ground of carrying on business without valid licence. In that Special civil Application the main grievance of the petitioners was that the application filed by them for grant of licence has not been decided. In that petition this Court ordered on 11. 4. 1994 for consideration of the application of the petitioners for grant of fresh licence and that has been considered, but under the impugned order dated 30th May, 1994 that application has been rejected. This order dated 30th May, 1994 has been passed by the mamlatdar, and against that order the petitioner has statutory remedy of appeal or revision application. Instead of availing that remedy the petitioner has filed this "special Civil application before this Court. ( 7 ) WHEN against the impugned order a statutory remedy is provided, the practice of directly approaching this Court by the litigants should be discouraged. The litigants should be insisted upon by the Court that where statutory remedy is available against an impugned order, they should first avail of that remedy and only after exhausting the remedies available under the statute there may be some justification in their act of approaching this Court. In this Special Civil Application, though it has been mentioned that the petitioner has no other equally efficacious and alternative remedy available, except by way of this petition, how this alternate remedy which is there is not efficacious has not been disclosed. 1. Net result of the aforesaid discussion is that Special Civil Application No. 3384 of 1994 is dismissed. Rule discharged. Interim relief granted by this Court stands vacated. 1. Net result of the aforesaid discussion is that Special Civil Application No. 3384 of 1994 is dismissed. Rule discharged. Interim relief granted by this Court stands vacated. So far as Special Civil Application No. 8450 of 1994 is concerned, it is also dismissed only on the ground of availability of alternate remedy to the petitioners against the impugned order. However, in case the petitioners approach the appellate or revisional authority, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, such appeal or revision application, as the case may be, may not be dismissed on the ground of limitation, and the same shall be decided on merits. Subject to the aforesaid directions, rule discharged. No order as to costs. .