IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO : 27942 of 2009 Between: Tamara Dwakra Group, Mandalavaripalle, H/o.Bandrevu village, Peddamandyam Mandal, Chittoor District ..... PETITIONER(S) AND The Revenue Divisional Officer, Madanapalle, Chittoor District and another. .....RESPONDENT(S) THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO : 27942 of 2009 ORDER : The petitioner is the fair price shop dealer of shop No.21 of Mandalavaripalle village, H/o.Bandrevu village, Peddamandyam Mandal, Chittor District, and her authorization was renewed from time to time and according to her, she gave an application on 16-06-2009 by paying necessary amount for the purpose of renewal of the said authorization. It appears the 2nd respondent-Tahsildar, Peddamandyam Mandal, inspected the petitioner’s authorization on 02-11-2009 and found that the said authorization was not renewed and also taking the fact that the petitioner’s husband was elected as Sarpanch of the village, reported the matter to the 1st respondent- Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub Collector, Madanapalle, Chittor District, for initiating necessary action. Pursuant thereto, the 1st respondent, by proceedings dated 29-11-2009, issued show cause notice calling for explanation of the petitioner and further suspended the authorization. As against the said order, the petitioner approached this Court and filed the present writ petition. 2. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that according to G.O.Ms.No.52, dated 18-12-2008, it is only the elected Sarpanches who are disqualified to be appointed as fair price shop dealers, but here the petitioner is not a Sarpanch and her husband is the Sarpanch. She does not incur said disqualification. It is further contended that though the petitioner gave an application seeking renewal of the authorization on 16-06-2009 by paying the necessary fee, but however, the 1st respondent has not passed any orders. 3. This Court is not inclined to go into the said contention put- forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner for the reason that the petitioner is having an alternative and efficacious remedy by way of an appeal before the Joint Collector, Chittoor District. However, as the petitioner expressed her willingness to face the enquiry, she is hereby directed to offer her explanation to the 1st respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub Collector, Madanapalle, Chittor District, within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the 1st respondent shall complete the enquiry and pass necessary orders within four weeks thereafter. If the explanation is offered and for any reason the 1st respondent does not pass orders within the stipulated time, the petitioner’s authorization shall be restored and she shall be permitted to distribute the scheduled commodities to the cardholders, during the pendency of enquiry. 4. With the aforementioned directions, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ December 22, 2009 Note: Issue C.C In two days. B/o. kvr