IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH, AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY THURSDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF APRIL, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY WRIT PETITION No.20872 of 2007 Between: Smt. N.Madhavilatha. … Petitioner AND The Joint Collector, Prakasam District, Ongole, and two others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri I.Gopala Reddy. Counsel for the respondents: Asst. Govt. Pleader for Civil Supplies for R.1 to R.3. Sri M.Brahma Reddy for R.4 & R.5. This Court made the following: ORDER:- At the interlocutory stage, the main Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. This Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus to declare proceedings dated 31-7-2007 issued by respondent No.2, by which the petitioner’s fair price shop authorization was cancelled, as illegal and arbitrary. Heard Sri I.Gopala Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner; Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies for respondents 1 to 3; and Sri M.Brahma Reddy, learned counsel for respondents 4 and 5. The admitted facts are that the authorization of the petitioner’s fair price shop was cancelled by respondent No.2, vide: proceedings dated 31-7-2007. Questioning the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal before respondent No.1. The petitioner claimed that though she sought for suspension of the order of respondent No.2, respondent No.1 expressed his disinclination to grant such an order. Hence, she filed the present Writ Petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the petitioner filed an appeal, since the order of respondent No.2 was passed in utter violation of principles of natural justice, the said order is liable to be set aside in this Writ Petition, without directing the petitioner to pursue her remedy of appeal. I am unable to countenance this submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner for the reason that ordinarily a person complaining of violation of principles of natural justice is entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court without availing the alternative remedy, but the said principle may not apply to this case, because the petitioner already availed her remedy of appeal before respondent No.1 and if at all, her grievance lies to the limited extent of respondent No.1 not disposing of her application for stay. In this view of the matter, the Writ Petition is disposed of without going into the merits of the case. Respondent No.1 is directed to dispose of the appeal stated to have been filed by the petitioner against order dated 31-7-2007 passed by respondent No.2 within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Since, admittedly, the petitioner is continuing as a fair price shop dealer, she shall be allowed to continue as such till the disposal of the appeal. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, WPMP No.27066 of 2007 is disposed of as infructuous. ----------------------------------- - C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J 03-4-2008. Note: Issue CC in one week. (BO) MNR