THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.8558 of 2010 April 19, 2010 Between: Smt.S.Anuradha, W/o.S.Mallikarjun … Petitioner And The Collector (CS), Medak District, Sangareddy And others ... Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.8558 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner is dealer of Fair Price Shop (FPS) No.3, Patancheru, Medak District. His authorisation was suspended on 19.3.2010. The said order was passed by the Tahsildar, Patancheru. Challenging the same, he filed W.P.No.6951 of 2010. This Court disposed of the said writ petition on 29.3.2010 in the following manner. ORDER: The writ petition is filed questioning the order of the Tahsildar, Patancheru Mandal, Medak District, dated 19.3.2010, suspending the Fair Price Shop dealership and authorisation of the petitioner. There is an effective alternative remedy under Clause 20 of the Andhra Pradesh State Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008, by way of appeal to the Revenue Divisional Officer. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to go into the merits of the case. Liberty is given to the petitioner to file appeal within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and also file an application seeking stay/suspension of the order of the Tahsildar. The appellate authority may pass orders on the stay application within a period of one week after the appeal is filed. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. Under Clause 20(1) of the Andhra Pradesh State Public Distribution System (Control) Order 2008, appeal would lie to the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) against the order of Tahsildar. But appeal was presented to the District Collector (C.S.)/Joint Collector, who entertained the appeal and rejected stay by proceedings No.CSA/160/2010, dated 09.4.2010. Against the order of rejection, present writ petition is filed. The very entertaining of the appeal by the Joint Collector, who is revisional authority, under Clause 20(1) of the Control Order is erroneous. When appeal is presented District Collector, he ought to have remitted the same to RDO having jurisdiction over the matter as the appeal against the order of suspension passed by the Tahsildar. Probably by inadvertence, first respondent entertained the appeal and rejected the stay. On this ground alone the order cannot be sustained because virtually the petitioner is denied remedy of revision provided by the Control Order. In the result, the impugned order dated 09.4.2010 is set aside with a direction to first respondent to send appeal papers to RDO forthwith, who shall consider the appeal as well as stay application and pass necessary orders. If the petitioner is still continued as dealer of FPS No.3, Patancheru, he shall be continued for the month of April 2010. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. ______________ (V.V.S. RAO, J) April 19, 2010 NOTE: Dispatch order copy by 20.4.2010. (By order) YS