IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 5951 of 2004 Between: Smt.M.Bujjamma, W/o.M.Yadagiri Reddy, R/o.Kalwapally Village, Gurrampode Mandal, Nalgonda Dist. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Dist.Collector (CS), Nalgonda Dist. 2 The Revenue Divisional officer, Nalgonda Dist. 3 The M.R.O.,Gurrampode Mandal, Nalgonda Dist. 4 Smt.Maram Sudha Rani, W/o.Sudhakar Reddy,Sarpanch of Kalwapally Village, Gurrampode Mandal, Nalgonda 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 writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring the order No.CSI/186/2003, Dt.10-03-04 of the ﬁrst respondent as illegal and consequently to set aside the same. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.B.G.RAVINDER REDDY Counsel for the Respondent: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION NO.5951 of 2004 ORDER: The petitioner is Fair Price Shop (FPS) Dealer of Kalwapally Village. Acting on a report submitted by the third respondent - Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Gurrampode, the second respondent – Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer, Nalgonda, initiated disciplinary action and passed orders on 18.01.2003, suspending FPS authorization. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Joint Collector. By an order, dated 29.03.2003, the appeal was allowed and the matter was remitted to the second respondent. After remand, by proceedings, dated 06.11.2003, the Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer conducted de nova enquiry and having noticed that there are minor irregularities, imposed a ﬁne of Rs.500/- duly restoring FPS Dealership. The petitioner was continued as such. Subsequently, on an appeal ﬁled by the fourth respondent - Sarpanch of Kalwapally Village, the ﬁrst respondent – District Collector, Nalgonda District, in exercise of powers under Clause 20 of the Andhra Pradesh State Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2001 (‘the Control Order’, for brevity), stayed the order of the Joint Collector, after a period of about one year. Aggrieved by the said order, the present Writ Petition is filed. The respondents have not ﬁled counter-aﬃdavit. Though notice was served on the fourth respondent – Sarpanch, none appeared for her. Learned counsel for both sides made their submissions. There is no denial that against the order of suspension, the petitioner ﬁled appeal before the Joint Collector, who is the designated appellate authority. The appellate authority allowed and remitted the matter to the Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer. Therefore, again the District Collector cannot entertain appeal under Clause 20 of the Control Order. Secondly, it is very much doubtful whether Sarpanch can be an aggrieved person to challenge the order of the Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer, which has already been set aside by the appellate authority at the ﬁrst instance and after the original authority imposed a minor penalty on the petitioner. In that view of the matter, the impugned order suﬀers from incurable defect and is liable to be rectified. The Writ Petition is, therefore, allowed. The impugned order, dated 10.03.2004, is set aside. No costs. ____________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 25.09.2008 GJ