IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 7985 of 2008 Between: E. Ramanjanamma, W/o. E. Chendraiah, R/o. Nallachelimila Village, Devanakonda Mandal, Kurnool District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Adoni, Kurnool District. 2 The Tahsildar, Devanakonda Mandal, Adoni Division, Kurnool District. 3 The Mandal Revenue Inspector, Devanakonda Mandal, Adoni Division, Kurnool District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.V.RAGHU VEER Counsel for the Respondents: AGP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to set aside proceedings, dated 24.03.2008 issued by respondent No.2 whereby he suspended the authorization of the petitioner’s fair price shop of Nallachelimila Village, Devanakonda Mandal, Kurnool District. The petitioner is a fair price shop dealer having been appointed as such on 16.07.2007. By the impugned proceedings, the authorization of the petitioner was suspended by respondent No.2. A perusal of the said proceedings shows that the Mandal Revenue Inspector, who is said to have held enquiry submitted a report to respondent No.2 pointing out as many as 9 irregularities and based on the same, respondent No.2 suspended the petitioner’s authorization pending enquiry. Sri K.V.Raghuveer, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no notice was issued to the petitioner before the Mandal Revenue Inspector sent his report based on which, respondent No.2 issued the impugned proceedings and that respondent No.2 is vested with the limited power of suspending the authorization only for 90 days under G.O.Ms.No.47, dated 06.10.2007, while the impugned proceedings have not limited the period of suspension. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. As regards the first contention, the authorization of the petitioner has been suspended as an interim measure pending enquiry. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled to any notice at that stage. This contention, therefore, does not merit consideration. With regard to the second contention of the learned counsel, I find force in his submission that under G.O.Ms.No.47, dated 06.10.2007, the power of respondent No.2 is limited to suspending a fair price shop dealer for a period not exceeding 90 days. Respondent No.2, therefore, ought to have limited the period of suspension to 90 days, but I am not inclined to set aside the impugned proceedings merely on this ground and instead, I direct that they shall be treated as having been issued for a limited period of 90 days. In my considered opinion, the impugned proceedings issued by respondent No.2 need not be considered on merits since the petitioner has an effective alternative remedy of appeal available under Clause 20(1) of the Andhra Pradesh State Public Distribution System Control Order, 2001. Therefore, I do not find any reason to entertain this writ petition filed bypassing such an effective alternative remedy. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is dismissed giving liberty to the petitioner to avail the remedy of appeal, if she is so advised. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, WPMP.No.10503 of 2008 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 11th APRIL, 2008 kvni