IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 24658 of 2008 Between: Ch. Gouraiah, S/o. Mallaiah, of Shop No.17, Mancharpet Village, Athmakur Mandal, Nalgonda District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Bhongir, Nalgonda District. 2 The Tahsildar, Athmakur Mandal, Nalgonda 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 an appropriate Writ, Order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, to declare the impugned proceedings No. H/2273/2008 dt. 3- 10-2008 issued by the 2nd respondent suspending the authorization of the petitioner, without issuing any show cause notice and without following the due process as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and consequently set aside the same, and to grant such other relief or reliefs. Counsel for the Petitioner: SMT.MARREDDY BHAGYAMMA Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 24658 of 2008 O R D E R: The petitioner herein is the authorized dealer of fair price shop No.17 of Nancharipet Village, Athmakur Mandal, Nalgonda District. This writ petition is ﬁled challenging the order passed by the 2nd respondent-Tahsildar, Athmakur Mandal dated.03-10-2008 suspending the authorization of the petitioner pending enquiry into the alleged irregularities in distribution of commodities to the cardholders. Various contentions have been raised by the petitioner including that the impugned order which was passed without prior notice is arbitrary and illegal. However, having regard to the admitted fact that the impugned order of suspension is only as an interim measure pending enquiry into the alleged irregularities, it cannot be held that the impugned order is bad for want of prior notice. So far as the other contentions with regard to the correctness of the allegations made against the petitioner are concerned, since the same is subject matter of enquiry yet to be conducted by the competent authority, it is neither necessary nor proper for this Court to express any opinion. Moreover an alternative remedy of Appeal is available against the impugned order and without exhausting such remedy it is not open to the petitioner to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article.226 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. However, this shall not preclude the petitioner to work out the remedy of appeal, if he so chooses. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI,J Date:11-11-2008 KLP