IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.11138 of 2009 Between: Smt D.Jyothi W/o.Shiva Charan Village Adloor Yellareddy Mandal Sadasivanagar,Nizamabad District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The joint Collector Nizamabad District Nizamabad 2 The Revevenue Divisonal Officer Kamareddy Nizamabad District .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.BHOOMA GOUD Counsel for the Respondents:AGP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: ORDER: In this writ petition, order, dated 21.05.2009 passed by respondent No.2 cancelling the petitioner’s fair price shop authorisation is questioned. Heard Sri S.Bhooma Goud, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies representing the respondents. The petitioner’s fair price shop authorization was cancelled by respondent No.2 vide order, dated 16.11.2007. She questioned the said order by way of appeal before respondent No.1, who by his order, dated 31.01.2008 allowed the same and directed respondent No.2 to conduct an enquiry and take necessary action as deemed fit. In pursuance of the said direction, respondent No.2 held a fresh enquiry and passed the impugned order whereby the petitioner’s authorization was once again cancelled. Sri S.Bhooma Goud, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent No.1 having allowed the appeal, had not given any reasons for directing respondent No.2 to hold a fresh enquiry. He also submitted that no opportunity was given to the petitioner by respondent No.2 after the appeal was remanded by the appellate authority. As regards the first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, admittedly, she did not question order, dated 31.01.2008 passed by respondent No.1 in appeal. Therefore, having allowed the said order to become final, the petitioner cannot question the direction contained in the said order. With regard to the second contention, since the petitioner has a right of appeal, I am not inclined to give a conclusive finding thereon. However, for the purpose of disposal of this writ petition, it needs to be observed that the impugned order shows that in the fresh enquiry, respondent No.2 has recorded the statement of the petitioner and placed reliance on the same. At any rate, since the petitioner is being relegated to file an appeal, I do not intend to give a conclusive finding on this aspect, while permitting the petitioner to urge this contention before respondent No.1 in the appeal that may be filed by her. Admittedly, the impugned order is amenable to the appellate jurisdiction of respondent No.1. Therefore, I do not find any reason to entertain the writ petition filed bypassing the statutory remedy of appeal, which is undoubtedly an efficacious one. For the above-mentioned reasons, the writ petition is dismissed without going into the merits, with liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal before respondent No.1. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, WPMP.No.14312 of 2009 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 9th JUNE, 2009. kvni