IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 16115 of 2008 Between: Bere Mansa W/o.Rama Rao Appalrao Pet(V) Nekkonda(M) Warangal District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Joint Collector Civil Supplies Warangal 2 Revenue Divisional Officer Mahaboobabad,Warangal District 3 Rayineni Rajesh S/o.Ramaiah Nizampally(V) Regonda(M) Warangal District .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ,order or direction declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in considering and selecting the 3rd respondent for appointment of Fair price Shop Dealer of Shop No.2 of Appalraopet(V) Pursuant to the paper notification dt.21-6-2008 and further action of 1st respondent in not considering the interim application for stay pending appeal before the 1st respondent as totally illegal without jurisdiction and consequently direct the respondents not to take any further action including issuing of authorisation to the 3rd respondent in respect of Fair price Shop No.2 of Appalraopet(V) and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.LAKSHMA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: The petitioner is aggrieved by an order of grant of authorization to the 3rd respondent who is alleged to be unqualified for grant of such authorization. Aggrieved thereby the petitioner has preferred an appeal to the 1st respondent on 22-7-2008 and two days later filed this writ petition on 24-7-2008, challenging the grant of authorization to the 3rd respondent. The petitioner cannot be permitted to pursue parallel remedies. His other grievance that the 1st respondent has not considered the application for interim relief in the appeal preferred by the petitioner on 22-7-2008 must be recorded that this grievance is premature. Less than 48 hours have elapsed since the filing of the appeal to the 1st respondent and the petitioner cannot be permitted to complain of inaction by the 1st respondent in considering either the appeal or the interlocutory application. The Court is not in doubt that the 1st respondent-appellate authority shall consider either the appeal or the interlocutory application of the petitioner as expeditiously as possible. The writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. ________________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J 21st August, 2008. GRR