IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 19514 of 2008 Between: K.Nagamani W/o.Venkateswara Rao R/o.Rampalem Village, Hamlet of Gangolu Gramapanchayath, Gopalapuram Mandal, West Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, West Godavari District, Eluru. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Jangareddy Gudem, West Godavari District. 3 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Gopalapuram Mandal, West Godavari District. 4 Gunje Venkata Lakshmi W/o.O.Srinivas R/o.Rampalem Village, Hamlet of Gangolu Gramapanchayath Gopalapuram Mandal, West Godavari District. .....RESPONDENTS 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 issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the second respondent in appointing the fourth respondent as a fair price shop dealer for the shop No.39 vide proceedings in ROC No.585/2008 dated 21.8.2008 is illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice and set aside the orders of the second respondent and consequently direct the second respondent to appoint the petitioner as a fair price shop dealer in the place of fourth respondent and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: S.SURENDRA 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. 19514 of 2008 O R D E R: This writ petition is ﬁled seeking a declaration that the proceedings of the Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer, Jangareddy Gudem, West Godavari District, dated 21-08- 2008, whereunder the fourth respondent herein was appointed as authorised dealer of the fair price shop No.39 of Rampalem village, Gopalapuram Mandal, is arbitrary and illegal. Though various grounds have been raised assailing the impugned order, I am not inclined to go into the merits of the case, since an alternative remedy of appeal is available against the impugned proceedings. Without exhausting such an alternative statutory remedy, the petitioner cannot maintain this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, granting liberty to the petitioner to work out the remedy of appeal, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI,J Date: 08-09-2008 KLP