IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 4927 of 2008 Between: Smt.A.Ganga Bagirthi, W/o.Devi Dass, F.P.Shop No.3 of Nandipet Village & Mandal, Nizambad District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Joint Collector, Nizambad,Nizambad District. 2 Revenue Divisional Officer, Nizambad,Nizambad District. 3 Tahsildar, Nandipet Mandal, Nizambad District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.J.KANAKAIAH 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, dated 11.12.2007 issued by respondent No.2 whereby fair price shop dealership and authorization of the petitioner was cancelled. Heard Sri J.Kanakaiah, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. The petitioner was a fair price shop dealer in respect of shop No.3 of Nandipet Village and Mandal of Nizamabad District. On 11.12.2007, respondent No.2 issued proceedings whereby the petitioner’s authorization was cancelled on the ground that she failed to remit the amounts required for lifting the essential commodities for distribution for seven months. The petitioner claimed that she made representation, dated 20.02.2008 before respondent No.1 to set aside the said order passed by respondent No.2. The grievance of the petitioner is that so far respondent No.1 has not responded to the said representation. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the view that the petitioner had an effective remedy of filing appeal under Section 20(1) of the Andhra Pradesh State Public Distribution System Control Order, 2001. Instead of filing an appeal, she claimed to have made a representation on 20.02.2008. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as the order of respondent No.2 is vitiated by non-observance of principles of natural justice, this Court can entertain the writ petition without insisting on filing of the remedy of appeal. As a proposition, the submission of the learned counsel is acceptable, but on the facts of the case, I am not inclined to interfere with the order of respondent No.2 for the reason that the petitioner had already filed her representation before respondent No.1, who is the appellate authority to correct the errors committed by respondent No.2. In this view of the matter, respondent No.1 is directed to treat representation, dated 20.02.2008 said to have been filed by the petitioner as an appeal and dispose of the same after giving notice to the petitioner within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Subject to the above observations, this writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of main petition, WPMP.No.6391 of 2008 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 10th MARCH, 2008 kvni