IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY THE ELEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 4008 of 2008 Between: C.Malini W/o. Gopal R/o. Appecherla, Peddavaguru Mandal, Ananthapur District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Ananthapur, Ananthapur District. 2 The Joint Collector, Ananthapur, Ananthapur District. ..RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.SITA RAM Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following Order: This writ petition is filed for a Writ of Certiorari to quash the order dated 16-02-2008 passed by the first respondent, whereby he reaffirmed his earlier order dated 30-10-2006 cancelling the authorization of the petitioner. Heard Sri K.Sita Ram, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies and perused the record. On certain charges being framed against the petitioner, the first respondent cancelled the authorization of the petitioner by proceedings dated 30-10-2006. Assailing the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the second respondent. The main contention of the petitioner before the second respondent was that the first respondent passed the earlier order dated 30-10- 2006 cancelling the petitioner’s authorization on a report said to have been sent by the Tahsildar and that the same was not supplied to the petitioner. This contention was found acceptance by the second respondent and he allowed the appeal and remitted the matter to the first respondent with a direction that the petitioner shall be given an opportunity of personal hearing after providing a copy of the enquiry report of the Tahsildar on payment of cost. Subsequent thereto, the first respondent vide his order dated 16-02-2008 reconfirmed his earlier order of cancellation. Questioning the said order, the petitioner again filed an appeal before the second respondent on 23-02-2008 and the same is pending. Two days later the petitioner filed the present writ petition. Having regard to the above mentioned facts, I am of the considered view that the petitioner having availed the remedy of appeal before the second respondent, cannot avail a parallel remedy by filing the present writ petition in this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that since the first respondent failed to comply with the order of the second respondent resulting in violation of principles of natural justice, the writ petition is maintainable. A perusal of the order dated 16-02-2008 does not show that the petitioner after remand paid the cost for supply of a copy of the enquiry report and made any specific request to adjourn the case on the ground of non-supply of the enquiry report. At any rate since the appeal is pending before the second respondent, I am not inclined to give a conclusive finding on this aspect and liberty is given to the petitioner to raise all contentions including the one relating to non-supply of the enquiry report by the first respondent as directed by the second respondent. For the above mentioned reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________ 11-03-2008 usd