IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 15801 of 2008 Between: Smt. Pooja Dubey W/o. Late Naveen Kumar Dubey R/o. Flat No.101, Anitha Towers, Chanda Nagar, R.R. District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Special Grade Dy. Collector & Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division Office at Attapur, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. 2 Assistant Supply Officer, Civil Supply Office Circle-III, Office at Saroornagar, Ranga Reddy District. 3 Joint Collector-II, Ranga Reddy District, Office of Collector (C.S.), Ranga Reddy District. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, declare that the order of the 1st respondent vide Procs.No.E/1155/2008, dated 10.04.2008 in suspending my authorisation for F.P.S.No.322, Chanda Nagar as illegal and arbitrary and further direct the authorisation be restored and renewed and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.SURENDER Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following, at the stage of admission : ORAL ORDER: The petitioner’s authorization in respect of the Fair Price Shop No.322, Chandanagar, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, has been suspended pending enquiry by the 1st respondent bearing Proceedings No.E/1155/2008 dated 10.4.2008. Thereagainst, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the 3rd respondent on 3.5.2008. Aggrieved that the 3rd respondent has neither disposed of the appeal nor the application for interim relief therein, the writ petition is filed again, challenging the order of suspension by the 1st respondent dated 10.4.2008. The petitioner cannot be permitted to pursue parallel remedies. Since she had already preferred an appeal to the 3rd respondent, it is the 3rd respondent who must consider the appeal or the application for interim relief therein, on merits. In the circumstances, the writ petition is dismissed. The 3rd respondent may expeditiously consider the petitioner’s application for interim relief in the appeal dated 3.5.2008 directed against the order of the 1st respondent dated 10.4.2008, preferably within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. GODA RAGHURAM, J Date: 23.7.2008 cvm