HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.21810 of 2010 Date : 03.09.2010 Between : Smt. Zaibunnisa Begum. …..Petitioner And Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Revenue Divisional Officer, Bhongir & others. …..Respondents HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.21810 of 2010 ORDER : The petitioner is a fair price shop dealer of Jangampally village in Yadagirigutta Mandal of Nalgonda District, appointed as such, under the provisions of the A.P. Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008. On the allegation that the husband of the petitioner was carrying 50 litres of kerosene oil in two iron containers, which was meant for distribution through public distribution system, and thus, indulged in diversion of stocks, proceedings were initiated for cancellation of authorization, and a show cause notice, dated 16th March 2009 was issued, for which, the petitioner has filed her explanation on 13th May 2009. Having not satisfied with the explanation offered by the petitioner, the primary authority-Revenue Divisional Officer, Bhongir, has passed orders on 7th of August 2010, issued in Proceedings No.C/370/09, cancelling the authorization of petitioner. In this writ petition, it is submitted by the learned counsel for petitioner that the 1st respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer has not considered her explanation, before passing the impugned order of cancellation. Under the scheme of the A.P. Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008, against the order of cancellation of authorization by preliminary authority i.e. the Revenue Divisional Officer, an effective alternative remedy of appeal is available to the Joint Collector under Sub-Clause (2) of Clause 20. In that view of the matter, there is no reason to entertain this writ petition, when such remedy is provided to the appellate authority. For the aforesaid reasons, without going into merits of the case, this writ petition is rejected on the ground of availability of alternative remedy. If the petitioner prefers any appeal against the impugned order before the 3rd respondent-Joint Collector, I am sure, the same will be disposed of by the 3rd respondent, as expeditiously as possible. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 3rd September 2010 ajr