THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.3771 of 2011 Dated 18th February, 2011 Between: Boddu Venugopala Rao …Petitioner And The Joint Collector, Krishna District, Machilipatnam and others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri B.Chinnapa Reddy Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3: AGP for Civil Supplies The Court made the following: ORDER: The grievance of the petitioner is that respondent No.2 has not been complying with the order of respondent No.1, who while allowing the petitioner’s appeal and setting aside the order of respondent No.2, appointing respondent No.4 as fair price shop dealer, directed respondent No.2 to consider afresh the claims of all the candidates and take a decision in the matter of appointment of fair price shop dealer afresh. I have heard Sri B.Chinnapa Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies representing respondent Nos.1 to 3. In his affidavit, the petitioner has pleaded that after disposal of the appeal, he has approached respondent No.2 with a request to consider the matter afresh. In my opinion, if the order passed by respondent No.1 is not being implemented by his subordinates, the petitioner is entitled to approach the former for appropriate directions. When an order was passed by the hierarchical authority in exercise of its quasi judicial functions, the subordinate authorities are bound to follow them. If there is defiance on the part of the subordinate authorities in following the order of the superior authority, the aggrieved party can always approach the superior authority by way of a representation. The jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be invoked for execution of the orders passed by the quasi judicial authorities. This Court has no doubt that if the petitioner makes a representation before respondent No.1, he will issue appropriate directions to respondent No.2 for due implementation of his order. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to make a representation to respondent No.1. If such representation is made, this Court has no doubt that respondent No.1 will consider the same and issue appropriate directions to respondent No.2 for completing the process of selection and appointment of fair price shop dealer expeditiously. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.4674 of 2011 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 18th February, 2011 VGB