The Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.22132 of 2007 Dated 22nd June, 2010 Between: M.Sanyasi Rao …Petitioner And The District Collector (Civil Supplies), Visakhapatnam and 4 others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : None appeared Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4: GP for Civil Supplies. Counsel for respondent No.5: None appeared The Court made the following: Order: At the interlocutory stage, the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal having regard to the nature of the Writ Petition. This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside the appointment of respondent No.5 as fair price shop dealer of B.Singavaram Village, Cheedikada Mandal, Visakhapatnam. The petitioner sought for a consequential direction to restore his dealership in respect thereof. The petitioner’s fair price shop dealership in respect of the above-mentioned shop was cancelled by respondent No.3, by order, dated 16-04-2002. The proceedings under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, ended in confiscation of the seized stock. The confiscation order was set aside by the Court of Sessions, Visakhapatnam, vide judgment, dated 11-05-2004, in Crl.A.No.66 of 2002. On the strength of the said judgment, the petitioner approached respondent No.3 for restoration of his dealership, but his request was rejected by respondent No.3 vide Memo, dated 13-11- 2004. Subsequently, respondent No.5 was appointed as fair price shop dealer in the place of the petitioner on 28-09-2007. Thereafter, the petitioner is stated to have filed an appeal before respondent No.2 on 13-09-2007 along with an application for condonation of delay in filing the same. The petitioner has averred that the said appeal is pending before respondent No.2. However, he has filed the present Writ Petition for the above-mentioned relief. In my opinion, when the petitioner has availed the remedy of appeal, which according to him is pending before respondent No.2, he cannot be permitted to avail a parallel remedy by filing the present Writ Petition. The petitioner is, therefore, entitled to pursue the remedy of appeal, which he has already availed. Subject to the above observations, the Writ Petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.28684 of 2007, filed by the petitioner for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 22nd June, 2010 lur