IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 7655 of 2008 Between: S. Ashok Kumar, s/o. Hanmathu, R/o. Setty Atmakur Village, Gadwal Mandal, Mahabubnagar District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, Mahabubnagar, Mahabubnagar District. 2 The Joint Collector, Mahabubnagar, Mahabubnagar District. 3 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Gadwal Division, Mahabubnagar District. 4 The Tahsildar, Gadwal Mandal, Mahabubnagar District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.A.RAVI BABU Counsel for the Respondents: AGP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of certiorari to quash order, dated 27.12.2007 of respondent No.3 as confirmed by order, dated 15.03.2008 of respondent No.2. Heard Sri A.Ravi Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. The petitioner’s fair price shop authorization was cancelled by respondent No.3 by his order, dated 27.12.2007. An appeal filed by him against the said order before respondent No.2 was dismissed on 15.03.2008. Questioning these two orders, the present writ petition is filed. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner did not dispute that against the order of respondent No.2, there is a statutory remedy of revision available to the petitioner under Clause 21 of the Andhra Pradesh State Public Distribution System Control Order, 2001 (for short ‘the Order’) to the District Collector concerned. The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, stated that since the order passed by respondent No.3 was in violation of principles of natural justice, in the sense that the report of the Tahsildar, on which he had solely based his order, was not supplied to the petitioner, there was no need for him to file the revision petition. I have considered the submission and I am not inclined to accept the same. The petitioner has not filed this writ petition questioning the order of respondent No.3, who is said to have violated the principles of natural justice by not supplying the enquiry report. He had, in fact, availed the remedy of appeal before respondent No.2. The very plea of the petitioner that the order of cancellation passed by respondent No.3 is vitiated on account of non-supply of enquiry report, offers a valid ground for the petitioner to be raised before respondent No.1, who is the revisional authority and I have no reason to think that respondent No.1 would not appreciate the said contention in examining the validity or otherwise of the order passed by respondent No.3 and as confirmed by respondent No.2. In this view of the matter, the writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to approach respondent No.1 by way of revision petition under Clause 21 of the Order. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, WPMP.No.10068 of 2008 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 9th APRIL, 2008 kvni