IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO : 23951 of 2009 Between: N.C. Ramana ..... PETITIONER(S) AND The Revenue Divisional Officer, Ananthpur, Ananthpur District and 3 others. .....RESPONDENT(S) THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO : 23951 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner is the authorized fair price shop dealer of Gondipalli village, Gooty Mandal, Anantapur District. On the basis of a report, dated 18-07-2009, furnished by the Mandal Revenue Inspector, Gooty Mandal, stating that the petitioner is not properly distributing the scheduled commodities to the card holders as per the provisions of the A.P. State Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008, the 2nd respondent-Tahsildar, Gooty, suspended his authorization by proceedings dated 21-08-2009. Against which, he approached the appellate authority i.e. 1st respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, Anantapur, and filed an appeal and as the 1st respondent has not passed any orders, he filed W.P.No.19720 of 2009 and this Court by order dated 17-09-2009, disposed of the said writ petition with a direction to the 1st respondent to hear the appeal and pass appropriate orders at the earliest, preferably, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of that order. Thereafter, the 1st respondent, who is the disciplinary authority, issued show cause notice to the petitioner on 17-09-2009, for which, the petitioner offered his explanation dated 29-09-2009 and he also engaged an advocate who was present before the 1st respondent and requested to restore the petitioner’s authorization. The 1st respondent, after issuing a notice to the learned counsel for the petitioner, passed an order on 12-10-2009 canceling the authorization of the petitioner. The same is questioned in this writ petition. 2. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that it is not known as to whether the 1st respondent has acted as the appellate authority or as the original authority. According to him, when an appeal is preferred by the petitioner against an order of suspension passed by the 3rd respondent, the 1st respondent should have restricted himself by passing an order of either confirming or setting aside the said order of suspension, but he went beyond the scope of his jurisdiction and passed an order of canceling the authorization of the petitioner. 3. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies submitted that the 1st respondent is the competent appellate authority as well as the disciplinary authority. It is true that the petitioner filed an appeal before the 1st respondent assailing the suspension of his authorization. Merely because the petitioner filed an appeal questioning the suspension of his authorization by the 3rd respondent, it cannot be said that the 1st respondent, who is a competent appellate authority, cannot exercise his original jurisdiction and pass final orders canceling authorization of the petitioner. According to her, in the case on hand, the 1st respondent after issuing show cause notice and calling for an explanation and after hearing the counsel for the petitioner, passed the impugned order and hence, it cannot be said that the order impugned is illegal. 4. Sri K.Srinivas, learned counsel, submitted that he filed caveat on behalf of the card holders, but however, as the card holders are not impleaded as party respondents, his name is not printed for the caveators and hence, he may be heard. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies and Sri K.Srinivas, learned counsel for the card-holders. 6. Admittedly, against the order of this nature, the petitioner has a remedy of revision before the District Collector, as provided for under Clause 21 of the A.P. State Public Distribution System (Control Order), 2008. As the petitioner approached this Court without exhausting the said remedy, this Court is not inclined to express any view on the merits of the case as canvassed by the learned counsel on either side. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to approach the District Collector and file a revision against the order impugned, within a period of four weeks from today, and on such revision being filed, the District Collector shall consider and dispose of the same, within a period of one week from the date of filing of a revision. In the meanwhile, the respondent-authorities are hereby directed to permit the petitioner to continue as fair price shop dealer of Gondipalli village, Gooty Mandal, Anantapur District. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ November 10, 2009 Kvr