THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 5493 of 2005 DATED:30-11-2005 Between: B. Venkateswarlu, S/o. Ramaiah, Hindu, Nagambotlapalem Village, Tallur Mandal, Prakasam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Joint Collector, Prakasam District at Ongole. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kandukur, Prakasam District. 3 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Tallur Mandal, Prakasam District. 4 Garikapati Venkadas S/o. Chandradas R/o. Nagambotlapalem village, Tallur Mandal, Prakasam Dist. R4 is impleaded as per court order dt. 4-4-2005 in WPMP 9128 of 2005 .....RESPONDENT(S) THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE G.ROHINI W.P.No.5493 of 2005 ORDER: This writ petition is filed aggrieved by the order passed by the second respondent- Revenue Divisional Officer, dated 7th March,2005 , where under the authorization of the petitioner in respect of fair price shop of Nagambotlapalem village was cancelled. As can be seen from the material on record, the authorization of the petitioner was earlier suspended pending enquiry, questioning which, the petitioner filed W.P.No.25164 of 2004 . The said writ petition was disposed by this court by order dated 7th day of February,2005 directing the Revenue Divisional Officer to complete the enquiry and with further direction that the petitioner shall be entitled to continue as dealer till disposal of the proceedings. Subsequently, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 2-2-2005 calling upon him to explain the charges specified there under. The petitioner submitted his explanation. Having considered the same, the Revenue Divisional Officer under the impugned order dated 7th March,2005 cancelled the authorization which is under challenge in this writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contends that the second respondent failed to consider the explanation offered by the petitioner and he was also not afforded an opportunity of hearing and therefore, impugned order of cancellation is arbitrary and illegal. He points out that initially second respondent passed an order dated 1-3-2005, in which he has stated that the petitioner failed to submit his explanation. Subsequently, the same Officer passed the impugned order without even referring to the earlier order dated 01-03-2005. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the said fact itself reflects that the second respondent had acted in an unfair and arbitrary manner without application of mind to the explanation offered by the petitioner. A Counter affidavit has been filed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kandukur. Though he failed to explain why there were two orders, it was stated that the explanation offered by the petitioner was considered and after examining the same, it was found that all the charges against him were proved and therefore, the authorization was cancelled. Heard both the learned counsel and perused the material on record. At the out set, it is to be noted that against the impugned order dated 7th March,2005, an efficacious alternative remedy by way of appeal is available under Clause 20 of A.P. State PDS (Control) Order 2001. Without exhausting the said alternative remedy, the petitioner cannot maintain this writ petition. In the circumstances and keeping in view that the matter involves several disputed questions of fact, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition granting leave and liberty to the petitioner to prefer an appeal against the impugned order dated 7th March,2005 within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order, in which event, the appeal shall be entertained and appropriate orders be passed in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of filing of such appeal. Till then status quo obtaining as on today shall continue. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of . No costs. --------------- 30-11-2005 Note: C.C. in three days. B/o. Stp