IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.15683 of 2010 BETWEEN Ambati Simmamma. ... PETITIONER AND The Commissioner, Director of Civil Supplies and four others. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. UMASANKAR LOKANADHAM Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following order: ORDER: In this writ petition, the petitioner has questioned the validity of the order dated 13.05.2010 passed in R.C.No.1169/2010-11 by the third respondent – Revenue Divisional Officer, Srikakulam. By the aforesaid order, the third respondent ordered for restoration of authorization held by the fifth respondent by imposing fine amount of Rs.1,500/-. 2. The fifth respondent is the regularly appointed dealer for distribution of essential commodities under Andhra Pradesh State Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008. On certain allegations, the authorization held by the fifth respondent was suspended and to continue supply to the cardholders the petitioner was appointed as a temporary dealer pending finalization of proceedings against the fifth respondent. The third respondent – RDO while considering the explanation filed by the fifth respondent warned him not to repeat such acts and imposing fine amount of Rs.1,500/- ordered restoration of authorization held by him. 3. The petitioner, who was appointed as temporary dealer, has questioned the said order in this writ petition mainly on the ground that in spite of the findings recorded in the enquiry that the fifth respondent has committed certain irregularities, his authorization was restored by imposing a fine of Rs.1,500/-. 4. It is to be noted here that as per the Andhra Pradesh State Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008, there is a right of appeal provided to the appellate authority - Joint Collector against the final orders of the Revenue Divisional Officer. There is also further remedy of revision to the District Collector against the orders passed by the Joint Collector. In that view of the matter, there is no reason for the petitioner to approach this Court directly against the order of the RDO. 5. This Court is of the view that there is an effective alternative remedy available to the petitioner, if he is aggrieved by the impugned order. In any event, it is also to be noticed that while imposing punishment, having regard to the nature of the allegations and explanation offered by the concerned dealer, it is for the disciplinary authority to pass suitable orders but it is not open for the petitioner to seek any directions for imposing a particular penalty under the disciplinary proceedings. When the discretion is exercised by the concerned disciplinary authority restoring the authorization of the fifth respondent, petitioner - a temporary dealer cannot question the said orders by way of writ petition that too without exhausting the remedies of appeal and revision. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J October 5, 2010 DSK