IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.326 of 2011 Between: C. Sujatha ..... Petitioner AND The Govt., of A.P., rep., by District Collector, Chittoor, Chittoor District & others. .....Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri S.V. Muni Reddy Counsel for respondents 1-3: AGP for Civil Supplies The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.326 of 2011 ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside order dated 14.12.2010 of respondent No.2, whereby he has reinstated respondent No.4 as fair price shop dealer on imposition of certain penalty. At the hearing, Sri S.V. Muni Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, has not disputed that the impugned order is amenable to remedy of appeal. However, he submitted that the said order passed by respondent No.2 is without jurisdiction. In my opinion, respondent No.2, being the disciplinary authority, is vested with the jurisdiction to pass a final order after completion of enquiry. Therefore, it cannot be said that the impugned order is without jurisdiction. However, whether respondent No.2 is vested with the power to order reinstatement of respondent No.4 on payment of penalty, having found that he is guilty of misconduct, is a question, which can be raised by the petitioner before the appellate authority. If such an issue is raised, the appellate authority shall decide the same along with other issues that may be raised by the petitioner in questioning the validity of the impugned order. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to avail the remedy of appeal. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.416 of 2011 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is also dismissed. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 19.01.2011 ES