IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO : 25160 of 2009 Between: K.Malleswari ..... PETITIONER(S) AND The Revenue Divisional officer,Dharmavaram Revenue Division and another. .....RESPONDENT(S) THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO : 25160 of 2009 ORDER : The petitioner is the dealer of fair price shop No.16 of Yelagalavanka village, Beluguppa Mandal, Anantapur District. As the Sarpanch and some of the villagers have made a complaint against the petitioner stating that the petitioner is not distributing the scheduled commodities properly and to take action against her, the Mandal Revenue Inspector, Beluguppa, enquired into the matter and submitted a report on 14-08-2009. On the basis of the said report, the 2nd respondent-Tahsildar, Beluguppa Mandal, by his proceedings dated 12-11-2009, suspended the petitioner’s authorization and reported the matter to the 1st respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, Dharmavaram Revenue Division, Anantapur District, who is the disciplinary authority, for initiating necessary action. The same is questioned in this writ petition. 2. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the 1st respondent is the disciplinary authority and an order of suspension can only be passed by the 1st respondent but not by the 2nd respondent and thus, the impugned order is without jurisdiction. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. 4. In fact, against the orders of this nature, the petitioner has an alternative remedy i.e. by way of filing an appeal before the 1st respondent. It is true that the disciplinary authority is the 1st respondent and he only can pass an order of suspension or cancellation etc. But it does not mean that the 2nd respondent has no power to suspend the authorization. Sub clause (7) of Clause 5 of the A.P. State Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008, empowers the 2nd respondent to pass an order of suspension for a limited period of 90 days and report the matter to the 1st respondent for initiating necessary disciplinary proceedings. Hence, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is merit less. 5. Further, though the petitioner is having an alternative remedy i.e. by way of filing an appeal before the 1st respondent, he approached this Court without exhausting the said remedy, for that reason also, this Court is not inclined to entertain this writ petition, however, as the matter is pending consideration before the 1st respondent, the writ petition can be disposed of by directing the 1st respondent. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission directing the 1st respondent- Revenue Divisional Officer, Dharmavaram Revenue Division, Anantapur District, to complete the enquiry etc. within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In the event of his failure to pass final orders, 1st respondent shall restore the petitioner’s authorization enabling her to distribute the scheduled commodities to the cardholders. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ November 19, 2009 Note: Issue C.C. in two days. B/o. kvr