IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 8197 of 2008 Between: Nimmala Satyanarayana S/o. Naganna Kalla Village & Mandal, Westr Godavari Dist. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Narasapuram, West Godavari Dist. 2 The Tahsildar, Kalla Mandal, Kalla , West Godavari Dsitrict. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.N.MURTHY Counsel for the Respondents: AGP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to set aside proceedings vide Roc.546/2008 (E), dated 07.03.2008 issued by respondent No.1 whereby the petitioner’s fair price shop authorization in respect of Shop No.11 of Kalla Village and Mandal, West Godavari District, has been suspended. Heard Sri P.N.Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in Writ Petition No.5032 of 2008 filed by the petitioner questioning the action of the respondents in not continuing the supply of essential commodities on the ground of pendency of proceedings under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’), the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies submitted before the Court that the petitioner’s authorization was suspended by respondent No.1 on 04.03.2008 and on the basis of the said submission, this Court dismissed the said writ petition. The learned counsel pointed out that no such order was passed on 04.03.2008, but respondent No.1 passed the order of suspension only on 07.03.2008. The learned counsel further submitted that respondent No.1 made an allegation that the petitioner is involved in clandestine business by diverting and selling the stocks, was not included in the proceedings initiated under Section 6A of the Act and that this clearly shows the non-application of mind on the part of respondent No.1. Having carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record, I am of the view that all the contentions raised by the petitioner in this writ petition can be conveniently raised by him in the appeal under Clause 20(1) of the Andhra Pradesh State Public Distribution System Control Order, 2001. The petitioner failed to point out any jurisdictional error in exercise of power by respondent No.1 in passing the impugned order and ordinarily this Court would not entertain writ petitions filed bypassing an effective alternative remedy of appeal. In this view of the matter, the writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal against the order impugned in this writ petition. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, WPMP.No.10829 of 2008 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 16th APRIL, 2008 Note: issue c.c. by 21.04.2008. B/o kvni