THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.29142 of 2010 Date: 24.11.2010 Between: T.Shekulu ..... Petitioner AND State of Andhra Pradesh rep.by Secretary, Civil Supplies Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Smt. D.Pramada Counsel for Respondents: AGP for Civil Supplies The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.4 in suspending the petitioner’s fair price shop authorisation vide proceedings No.J/2791/2010, dated 10.11.2010, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner is a fair price shop dealer. On the allegations that he has misused the essential commodities by drawing the same on certain cards, which pertain to dead persons, and misleading the higher-ups, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him. A show-cause notice was issued, to which, the petitioner has submitted explanation. After calling for a report from respondent No.5, respondent No.4 has passed order, dated 10.11.2010, whereby he has suspended the petitioner’s authorisation. At the hearing, Smt.D.Pramada, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that her client has not committed any misconduct in distribution of the essential commodities and that the impugned order suffers from a serious lacuna as respondent No.4 has failed to indicate therein whether the suspension ordered by him is pending further enquiry or as a substantive penalty. As regards the first submission of the learned counsel, as the petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy of an appeal, it is not appropriate for this Court to deal with this contention on merits and render a finding thereon. Ordinarily, the remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not available to a person unless he exhausts the alternative remedy. Therefore, I do not find any reason to entertain this writ petition, at this stage. As regards the second contention, there is some substance in the petitioner’s plea that respondent No.4 failed to indicate whether the order of suspension is in the nature of an interim arrangement or a substantive penalty. However, this aspect can be raised by the petitioner before respondent No.3, who being the appellate authority is empowered to deal with the same and decide the issue. On this ground alone, I am not inclined to entertain the writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly, dismissed, without going into the merits of the case, with liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal against the impugned order before respondent No.3, who shall decide all the aspects raised by the petitioner, including the one relating to the nature of the order passed by respondent No.4. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.37121 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dt.24.11.2010 VGB