Judgment K. Ravichandrabaabu, J. 1. The present writ petition is filed challenging the order of the first respondent dated 31.05.2014 and the consequential direction to permit the petitioner to operate the quarry operation. 2. Through the impugned order, the quarry licence granted to the petitioner is terminated with immediate effect. As against the impugned order, a statutory appeal remedy is available to the petitioner as per Rule 36-C(2) of Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules 1959. 3. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that such an appeal is also filed by the petitioner on 07.06.2014 itself. 4. Having filed such an appeal against the very same impugned order, I fail to understand, as to how the present writ petition is filed by the petitioner before this Court challenging the very same order. The petitioner seeks remedy before two forums parallelly as against the very same order, which is not permissible under to law. Therefore, this writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable in view of the fact that the petitioner has already and rightly approached the appellate authority by filing an appeal on 07.06.2014 which is still pending. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.