IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.2386 of 2009 Between: R. Narasimhulu S/o. Siddappa R/o. Rachinepalli Village, Tanakal Mandal, Anantapur District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Joint Collector, Anantapur, Anantapur District. 2 The Sub-Collector, Penukonda, Anantapur District. 3 The Tahsildar, Thanakal Mandal, Anantapur District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction declaring the order of the 2nd respondent passed in D.Dis.No.1650/2008/C dated 01.01.2009, as illegal, arbitrary and one without jurisdiction. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.O.MANOHER REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.2386 OF 2009 ORDER: This writ petition is filed questioning the order dated 01.01.2009 passed by the 2nd respondent- Sub Collector, Penukonda, Anantapur District. Under the impugned order dated 01.01.2009, the authorization of the petitioner as fair price shop dealer of Rachinepalli Village, Tanakal Mandal of Anantapur District, was cancelled by the 2nd respondent, after conducting enquiry into certain irregularities alleged to have been committed by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that none of the charges framed against the petitioner are grave in nature, that no substantial evidence was placed before the authority to come to the conclusion that the charges are proved, that no reasons, warranting cancellation of the authorization of the petitioner, were furnished and, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Per contra, learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for the respondents supports the impugned order and states that in quasi-judicial proceedings, there is no necessity of furnishing all details. He further submits that against the impugned order, an appeal lies to the 1st respondent- Joint Collector, Anantapur, and without availing the said remedy, the petitioner has directly approached this Court. I have given my earnest consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the impugned order and other material made available on record. No doubt, a perusal of the impugned order would prima facie indicate that neither the charges are grave in nature nor the reasons furnished are tenable and that no evidence was discussed in detail and no findings were recorded. However, in view of the fact that an alternative remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner against the impugned order, I am not inclined to interfere with the matter at this stage. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the petitioner to file an appeal before the 1st respondent- Joint Collector, Anantapur, against the impugned order dated 01.01.2009, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, and, on such appeal being filed, the 1st respondent shall dispose of the same in accordance with law, within a period of three months thereafter. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order dated 01.01.2009 shall stand suspended during the pendency of the appeal to be filed by the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU 11th February, 2009. IBL