IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 17141 of 2008 Between: T. Venkata Anuradha Devi W/o. Obul Reddy Sreenivasulu Reddy R/o. Narepalle Village, Kondreddipalle Post, Vemula Mandal, Kadapa District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Joint Collector, Kadapa. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Jammalamadugu, Kadapa District. 3 The Tahsildar, Vemula Mandal, Kadapa District. 4 Ramireddy Sirisha S/o. Raja Reddy R/o. Narepalle Village, Kondreddipalle Post, Vemula Mandal, Kadapa 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 a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus holding the action of the Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer, Jammalamadugu in appointing the 4th respondent as Fair Price Shop Dealer of Narepalle by his proceedings Ref.No.B1/1689/2007, dated 10.07.2008, as illegal, arbitrary and set aside the same and consequently direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner as Fair Price Shop Dealer of Narepalle Village, Vemula Mandal, Kadapa District, and pass such other orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.GUTTAPALEM VIJAYA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES Counsel for the Respondent No.4: None The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 17141 of 2008 Oral Order: Aggrieved by the grant of the authorization to the 4th respondent of the fair price shop for Narepalle Village, Vemula Mandal, Kadapa District, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the 1st respondent on 28.7.2008 and ten days thereafter, ﬁled this writ petition challenging the grant of authorization to the 4th respondent. Since the petitioner has already preferred an appeal as provided under the relevant Control Order, this Court is not inclined to adjudicate the grievance in the writ petition, as the petitioner cannot be permitted to pursue parallel remedies. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ____________________ GODA RAGHURAM,J DATE: 8th August, 2008 pnb