IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 27442 of 2006 Between: N.C. Ramana, S/o.N.C. Chinna Narayana, R/o.Gondipalli Village, Gooty Mandal, Ananthapur District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Joint Collector, Ananthapur. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Ananthapur, Ananthapur District. 3 M.Khadi Reddy ..RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.NAGENDRA REDDY Counsel for respondents 1 and 2: AGP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES Counsel for respondent No.3: MR.K.SRINIVAS The Court made the following : O R D E R: At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner is a fair price shop dealer. An enquiry was initiated against him for alleged irregularities in running the shop. By order dated 23-12-2006, respondent No.2 cancelled the authorization of the petitioner. Questioning the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal before respondent No.1. As his application for stay was not disposed of by respondent No.1, he filed the present writ petition. The applicant in WPMP No. 2311 of 2007 filed the said application for his impleadment. Today, the said application was allowed and the applicant was impleaded by a separate order. At the hearing, Sri P. Nagendra Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the order passed by respondent No.2 cancelling the petitioner’s authorization is in violation of principles of natural justice and hence, the same is liable to be set aside. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies submitted that since the appeal filed by the petitioner is pending before respondent No.1, the petitioner cannot be permitted to question the order of respondent No.2. Sri K. Srinivas, learned counsel for the impleaded respondent, submitted that his client was a temporary dealer, who was appointed during the period of suspension of the petitioner’s authorization, and that therefore, he is a necessary and proper party. He submitted that the petitioner deliberately failed to implead his client in the writ petition and hence the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on this ground. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that since the petitioner has already availed the remedy of appeal, which in my view is an efficacious one, the writ petition, as it is conceived, is not maintainable. The petitioner cannot maintain two parallel remedies. Therefore, the relief claimed by the petitioner to set aside the order of respondent No.2 cannot be granted. The petitioner is permitted to pursue the appeal filed before respondent No.1, challenging the order of respondent No. 2, which is impugned in this writ petition. A perusal of the record shows that this Court, by order dated 03-01-2007, granted interim direction to permit the petitioner to function as fair price shop dealer. It is admitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that in pursuance of the said direction, the petitioner is continuing as fair price shop dealer. In view of the same, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction to respondent No.1 to dispose of the appeal, within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till disposal of the appeal, the petitioner shall be continued as fair price shop dealer in respect of the shop in question. As a sequel to disposal of main petition, WVMP No.1236 of 2007 is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 22nd June, 2009 kl/vrn