IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 20369 of 2008 Between: Smt. G.Polamma W/o. Gopaiah Allipalli (V), Chintalapudi (M), West Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Joint Collector, West Godavari, at Eluru. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Eluru, West Godavari District. 3 The Tahsildar, Chintalapudi Mandal, At Chintalapudi, West Godavari 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 Writ or direction preferably Writ of Mandamus declaring the order issued by the 2nd respondent in the Proceedings No.ROC 772/2008/C dt. 30-8-2008 received by the Petitioner on 11-9-008, is illegal, arbitrary, contrary to records and violative of Principles of Natural justice, and consequetnly set aside the same and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.KOWTURU VINAYA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO: 20369 of 2008 ORDER The petitioner herein is an authorized dealer of the Fair Price Shop No.49 of Allipalli village, Chintalapudi Mandal in West Godavari District. By order dated 26.04.2008 the petitioner’s authorization was suspended by the second respondent pending enquiry. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the ﬁrst respondent on 03.05.2008. Alleging that the ﬁrst respondent failed to consider her appeal, the petitioner ﬁled W.P.No.11399 of 2008 before this Court. The said Writ Petition was disposed of by order dated 29.05.2008 with a direction to the Revenue Divisional Officer to conclude the enquiry within a period of two months from the date of that order. It appears that by the date of that order a show cause notice dated 26.04.2008 was already issued and the same was received by the petitioner on 29.04.2008. However, alleging that the second respondent failed to take any further steps, the petitioner earlier ﬁled W.P.No.19615 of 2008. When the said Writ Petition came up for consideration, it was brought to the notice of this Court that the authorization of the petitioner was cancelled by order dated 30.08.2008. Therefore, that Writ Petition was dismissed as withdrawn on 1.09.2008. Thereafter, the present Writ Petition has been ﬁled challenging the order of cancellation dated 30.08.2008. At the outset it is to be noted that against the impugned order of cancellation dated 30.08.2008 an alternative remedy of appeal is available before the ﬁrst respondent. Therefore, without exhausting such an alternative remedy, the petitioner cannot maintain the Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, learned counsel for the petitioner sought to contend that since the impugned order was in violation of principles of natural justice, availability of the alternative remedy is not a bar for maintaining the present Writ Petition. I do not ﬁnd any substance in the said contention since admittedly a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner long back on 26.04.2008 and in the impugned order itself it was mentioned that the show cause notice was served on the petitioner on 29.04.2008, but the petitioner failed to submit her explanation. In the circumstances I am of the opinion that the correctness of the ﬁndings recorded by the third respondent require to be considered by the appellate authority while considering the statutory appeal as prescribed under the statute. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on merits, this Writ Petition is disposed of granting leave and liberty to the petitioner to work out the alternative remedy of appeal. No order as to costs. ------------------- 19.09.2008 G.ROHINI, J. kvsn ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{KSRANI}