IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 11261 of 2008 Between: Smt. T. Dhanalakshmi W/o. T. Hemagiri Village, Yadamari Mandal, Chittoor District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Joint Collector (Civil Supplies) Chittoor, Chittoor District. 2 Revenue Divisional Officer, Chittoor, Chittoor District. 3 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Yadamari Mandal, Yadamari, Chittoor District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue an appropriate writ order or direction preferably one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the order of the 2nd respondent in Roc (B)/918/2008 dt. 9-5-2008 as arbitrary, illegal, violative of principles of natural justice and contrary to law and consequently direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to continue as Dealer in respect of F.P. Shop of Dasarapalli Village, Yadamari Mandal, Chittoor District, as usual and pass such other or further orders as are necessary. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.J.KANAKAIAH Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 11261 of 2008 ORAL ORDER: The writ petition is filed assailing the order of the second respondent dated 09-05-2008 suspending the authorization of the petitioner to the Fair Price Shop, Dasarapalle village, Chittoor District. By the impugned order of the second respondent, the petitioner’s authorization was suspended on several allegations of commission of irregularities by the petitioner in the running of the Fair Price Shop. The petitioner states that these allegations are all false and that the order of suspension has been passed mala fide since the petitioner is a member of MPTC having been so elected as an opposition party candidate. The petitioner has not chosen to implead any person by name alleging mala fides against such individual (officer). The plea of factual mala fides therefore cannot be entertained. The contention of the petitioner that there is no basis for the allegations leading to the impugned order of suspension cannot also be considered in this writ petition. The competent authority will have to consider the defence of the petitioner, in the final orders to be passed in an enquiry to be conducted in respect of the allegations which led to the impugned order of suspension. The petitioner has also an alternative remedy by way of an appeal to the Joint Collector. The petitioner has in fact filed an appeal on 23-05-2008, but has yet filed this writ petition on 26-05-2008. The litigative frenzy of the petitioner cannot be appreciated. The petitioner seeks parallel remedies one by way of an appeal and the other in judicial review, in this writ petition. On the aforesaid analysis, the writ petition is not maintainable and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J Dated: 03-07-2008 Pvks/*