ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 10.09.2012 holding that it was his brother respondent no. 6 who was the valid licencee to the Saw Mill, declining interference with the order dated 19.01.2011 cancelling the petitioner’s licence. 3. On the own showing of the petitioner, there is a property dispute between him and his brother leading to the institution of a Title Suit followed by a compromise decree etc. Originally there was one licence standing in the name of both. The controversy emanated after the difference between them and the running of independent Saw Mills by them on different premises. 4. Counsel for the State raises a preliminary objection that the petitioner has a remedy of revision available. 5. Keeping in mind that the order has not been passed behind the back of the petitioner but that he has had an opportunity of defence, questions of facts appear to be involved, the Court considers it appropriate that the petitioner avail his alternative statutory remedy first. 6. Leave is then sought to withdraw the application to pursue remedy of revision. 7. If so advised, it shall be open for the petitioner to seek any interim orders from the revisional authority pending disposal of the revision application also. 8. Nothing in the present order shall be deemed or construed as any opinion or observation on the merits of the claim which remains open in its entirely for consideration by the revisional authority but in accordance with law. 9. The application is dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty as aforesaid.