THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.4108 of 2011 Dated 22nd February, 2011 Between: N.Chinnaswamy Reddy …Petitioner And The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by the District Collector, Chittoor, Chittoor District and others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri S.V.Muni Reddy Counsel for respondents: AGP for Civil Supplies The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to set aside proceedings in Roc.B/1769/2009, dated 31.01.2011, whereby respondent No.2 has cancelled the petitioner’s fair price shop authorisation. At the hearing, Sri S.V.Muni Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, has not disputed that against the impugned order, his client has the remedy of filing an appeal before the Collector (Civil Supplies). The learned counsel, however, stated that since the appellate authority has already dealt with the petitioner’s case under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’), no purpose would be served by filing an appeal. In my opinion, this contention cannot be accepted because the proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act are distinct from the proceedings pertaining to disciplinary action against the petitioner. By disposing of the proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act, it cannot be presumed that the appellate authority would have a closed mind to the pleas that may be raised by the petitioner. In this view of the matter, I am not inclined to entertain the writ petition filed bypassing the effective alternative remedy. If the petitioner files an appeal, the appellate authority shall independently consider the same without being influenced by his order passed under Section 6-A of the Act. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.5087 of 2011 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 22nd February, 2011 VGB