Anil Kumar, J. Heard Sri Jagat Narain Dixit, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri M.B. Singh, learned Standing Counsel on behalf of opposite parties. 2. By means of present writ petition, petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 09.05.2011 passed by O.P.No. 2/District Magistrate, Unnao by which petitioner's Arms Licence No. 744 P.S. Bighapur of Revolver No. E-04274 has been suspended and a show cause notice given to him why the same be not cacelled. 3. Sri M.B. Singh, learned Standing Counsel raised a preliminary objection that against the impugned order dated 09.05.2011 the petitioner got a statutory remedy by way of appeal before the appellate authority under Section 18 of the Arms Act, 1959 as such the present writ petition is not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4. The said position is not disputed by learned counsel for petitioner. 5. In view of the abovesaid facts, once the statutory remedy is available to petitioner under the statute itself then in that circumstances he should avail the same and writ petition filed by him under Article 226 of the the Constitution of India is not maintainable on the ground of availability of statutory remedy under the statute itself in view of the law as down by Apex Court in the following cases:- 6. In the case of Titaghur Paper Mills Company Limited and another Vs. State of Orissa and others (1983 )2 SCC 433 wherein it was held as under:- "Where a right or liability is created by statute which give special remedy for enforcing it, that must be availed as the said statute provides a complete machinery in order to challenge the impugned action taken therein in the statute itself and not under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the case of Karnataka Chemical Industries and others Vs. Union of India and others (2000) 10 SCC 12, wherein it was held as under:- "When there is no challenge to the validity of any statutory provision, we see no reason as to why a writ petition should have been filed by passing the alternative remedy which is provided under the statute. On the short ground we dismiss this appeal, vacate the interim orders, direct the payment of the balance amount of duty along with interest @ 15% per annum with yearly rests. On the short ground we dismiss this appeal, vacate the interim orders, direct the payment of the balance amount of duty along with interest @ 15% per annum with yearly rests. It will be open to the appellant to avail of such statutory remedy as may be available to it. If an appeal is filed within four weeks from today, the Department will take a lenient view in condoning the delay." 7. In the case of Central Coalfilds Limited Vs. State of Jharkhand and others (2005) 7 SCC 492 , wherein it was held as under:- "If there is statutory alternative remedy available to a person under an statute itself, in that case the writ petition should nto be entertained under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the petitioner is directed to avail the alternative statutory remedy." 8. In the case of Kanaiyalal Lal Chand Sachdev and others Vs. State of Maharashtra and others (2011) 2 SCC 782 , in para Nos. 23 and 24 held as under:- "Para - 23 - In our opinion, therefore, the High Court rightly dismissed the petition on the ground that an efficacious remedy was available to the Appellants under Section 17 of the Act. It is well-settled that ordinarily relief under Articles226/227 of the Constitution of India is not available if an efficacious alternative remedy is available to any aggrieved person. (See: Sadhana Lodh v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr. (2003) 3 SCC 524 ; Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai and Ors. (2003) 6 SCC 675 ; State Bank of India v. Allied Chemical Laboratories and Anr. (2006) 9 SCC 252 ." 9. Para - 24- In City and Industrial Development Corporation v. Dosu Aardeshir Bhiwandiwala and Ors. (2009) 1 SCC 168 , this Court had observed that: The Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 is duty-bound to consider whether: (a) adjudication of writ petition involves any complex and disputed questions of facts and whether they can be satisfactorily resolved; (b) the petition reveals all material facts; (c) the Petitioner has any alternative or effective remedy for the resolution of the dispute; (d) person invoking the jurisdiction is guilty of unexplained delay and laches; (e) ex facie barred by any laws of limitation; (f) grant of relief is against public policy or barred by any valid law; and host of other factors." 10. For the foregoing reasons, the present writ petition filed by the petitioner is liable to be dismissed on the ground of availability of alternate Statutory remedy of appeal. 11. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed with the observation that it will be open to petitioner, if he so advised, may approach appropriate/appellate forum for redressal of his grievances involved in the present case. No order as to costs.