Judgment : 1. There is delay of 103 days in filing this appeal. Misc. W. No. 12244 of 2009 has been filed to condone the delay. 5th respondent has filed objections, opposing the condonation of delay. 2. We have heard Sri Ravi Varma Kumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants on the merits of the appeal, We have also heard Sri K.V. Narasimhan, learned Counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 4 and Sri S. Shekar Shetty, learned Counsel appearing for 5th respondent. Without going into the question of delay, we would dispose of the main appeal. 3. Appellant had filed writ petition against respondents 1 to 4 to quash an order dated 22-9-2008 (Annexure – R) passed under Section 321 (3) of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 (for short, ‘the Act’ ). He had also prayed for issuing a direction to the 4th respondent to renew the licence No. 2876 to run the canteen in the club premises of the writ petitioner. 5th respondent got himself impleaded in the writ petition. 4. Writ petition was disposed of by an order dated 23-7-2009 as not surviving for consideration, after taking into account the submissions made by learned Counsel appearing on both sides and by placing the same on record. The writ petitioner/appellant filed a Review Petition No. 368 of 2009 to review the aforesaid order. The petition was rejected. This writ appeal is directed against the order dated 23-7-2009 disposing of the writ petition and to grant the relief prayed in the writ petition. 5. In disputedly, the order impugned in the writ petition passed under Section 321(3) of the Act (Annexure-R) is appealable before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal under Section 444(1)(a) of the Act. After the writ petition was filed, noticing the alternate remedy available under the statute, the appellant has filed an appeal before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, questioning the said order. The appeal is stated to be pending. Hence, the first prayer in the writ petition cannot be considered. We leave open the questions raised against the said order, for being considered by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, wherein the appeal is pending. It is made clear that, the rejection of the writ petition or the review petition, shall not come in the way of the appeal being decided by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in accordance with law. 6. We leave open the questions raised against the said order, for being considered by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, wherein the appeal is pending. It is made clear that, the rejection of the writ petition or the review petition, shall not come in the way of the appeal being decided by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in accordance with law. 6. Indisputedly, the licence issued by the 4th respondent in favour of the appellant to run the canteen in the club premises has expired. In the face of the order passed by the 3rd respondent as at Annexure-R, in exercise of the jurisdiction under Section 321(3) of the Act, which is pending consideration before the Karnataka Appellate Authority in an appeal, unless the operation and execution of the said order is stayed, it is not permissible for the appellant to pursue its prayer for renewal of the licence to run the canteen. The order dated 22-9-2008 as at Annexure-R, comes in the way of 4th respondent considering the prayer for renewal of the licence. In the said view of the matter, the 4th respondent cannot be directed to consider the application seeking renewal of the licence. If the appellant were to get an appropriate order with regard to Annexure-R, it is at liberty to approach the 4th respondent for grant/renewal of licence. In the said view of the matter, it is unnecessary for us to interfere with the order passed by the learned single Judge impugned herein subject to the said observations, the writ appeal stands dismissed. Consequently, Misc. W. No. 12244 of 2009 for stay does not survive for consideration.