JUDGMENT D. K. Seth, J. The petitioners challenge an order under section 68-1 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. ' 2. Learned counsel contends that the said order has also been passed under section 68-U of the Act, as well. The same being an administrative order, Mr. Mukherji, learned counsel for the petitioners contends that this court should intervene. According to him the order is not an appealable one under section 68-O, since the sentence is less than 5 years. He also points out that section 68o does not include any appeal against an order passed under O section 68-U. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand points out that the order is an order under section 68-1, and as such, it is appealable. He also points out from the order that there is nothing to indicate that the said order was also issued under section 68-U. I have heard the learned counsel at length. 4. The order contained in annexure 'P-10' does not indicate that this an order under section 68-U. Therefore, it is open to the petitioners to prefer an appeal against the order passed under section 68-1 before the appellate authority. The order passed under section 67-U is a consequential order and can be passed only after an order under section 68-1 is passed. If the said order is stayed, in that event, the order under section 68-U cannot be continued. In view of the alternative remedy available. Which appears to be a sufficient remedy, where even the ground as to whether the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, applies in the case of the petitioners, or not, can also be gone into. 5. In that view of the matter, I am not inclined to interfere in the matter. The petition is, therefore, dismissed without entering into the merit of the case. All points are kept open to be nictated before the appropriate forum. Petition dismissed.