IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION No.14239 of 2008 Between: A. Ramalakshmi W/o. Balaji Rao 7th Ward, Kaikalur (V&M), Krishna District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Joint Collector, Krishna District at Machilipatnam. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Gudivada, Krishna District. 3 The Tahasildar, Kaikaluru (M) at Kaikaluru, Krishna District. 4 Grandhi Rajeswari S/o. Srinivasa Rao R/o. Opp. to Kumari Talkies, 7th Ward, Kaikalur (V&M), Krishna 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 writ or direction preferably writ of mandamus declaring the inaction of the 1st respondent in considering the application of the petitioner for stay, filed along with appeal on 17.06.2008 against the order of appointment of respondent No.4 dt. 23.05.2008 issued by 2nd respondent as illegal, arbitrary, and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondent No.1 to consider and dispose of the stay petition or appeal itself within a reasonable time and further direct the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to continue the petitioner as Fair Price Shop dealer of Shop No.7 of Kaikaluru (V&M) Krishna District, as usual pending disposal of appeal. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.KOWTURU VINAYA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 3: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES Counsel for the Respondent No.4 : - None - The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM Writ Petition No.14239 of 2008 ORAL ORDER: By an order dated 23.05.2008, the 4th respondent was granted authorization on a permanent basis for the fair price shop at 7th ward, Kaikaluru Town and Mandal, Gudivada Division, Krishna District. Earlier, petitioner, being the President of Lalitha Swayam Sahayaka Sangham Dwakra Group of 7th ward, was temporarily granted authorization to run the fair price shop pending authorization on a permanent basis. Petitioner also applied pursuant to a notification, dated 10.04.2008. In the selections, petitioner was not selected, while the 4th respondent was granted authorization, as already stated. Assailing the appointment of the 4th respondent, the petitioner preferred appeal under Section 20(2) (i) of the A.P. State Public Distribution System Control Order 2008 to the 1st respondent on 17.06.2008. Along with the appeal, petitioner claims to have made an application for interim stay of appointment of the 4th respondent. Having filed the appeal, as noticed above, petitioner nevertheless challenges the order dated 23.05.2008 of the 2nd respondent granting authorization to the 4th respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks invalidation of the order of the 2nd respondent dated 23.05.2008 in this writ petition. Petitioner cannot be permitted to pursue parallel remedies, one by way of an appeal and the other in judicial review. The writ petition is therefore, not maintainable. It is needless to state that the 1st respondent-appellate authority, to whom the petitioner has preferred the appeal, may dispose of the petitioner’s application for interim relief expeditiously and preferably within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With the above observations, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ (Justice Goda Raghuram) 4th July 2008 sh