IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 20231 of 2008 Between: K. Lakshmana Reddy S/o. Narayana Reddy R/o. 19, Allamadugu Village, Vedurukuppam Mandal, Chittoor District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Joint Collector, Chittoor, Chittoor District. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Chittoor, Chittoor District. 3 The Tahsildar, Vedurukuppam, Chittoor District. 4 Chandrakala W/o. Subrarhmanyam Reddy R/o. 19, Allamadugu Village, Vedurukuppam Mandal, Chittoor 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 issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of "Writ of Mandamus" declaring the orders of the 1st respondent passed in D.Dis/C1/826/08, dated 04.09.2008, conﬁrming the orders of the 2nd respondent passed in D.Dis.(B) 1662/2008, dt. 21.07.2008 as illegal, unjust, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice, malaﬁde, void, without jurisdiction, contrary to law and accordingly set aside the same and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.V.MUNI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 20231 of 2008 ORAL ORDER The petitioner herein was appointed as a temporary dealer of fair price shop of Allamadugu Village, Vedurukuppam Mandal, Chittoor District in March-2006 since the 4th respondent herein who is the permanent dealer went on leave for two months. Since then the petitioner has been distributing the commodities to the cardholders. While so it appears that proceedings were initiated against the 4th respondent for cancellation of her authorization and show-cause notice to that eﬀect was issued. The 4th respondent submitted her explanation. That apart, a report was called for from the Tahasildar, Vedurukupam and such report was submitted on 31-05-2008, stating that though the 4th respondent due to ill-health was unable to remit the Demand Draft for release of the commodities for the month of March-2006, she has now fully recovered. After considering the explanation submitted by the 4th respondent as well as the report of the Tahsildar, dated 31.05.2008, the 2nd respondent, by order, dated 21.07.2008 imposed a ﬁne of Rs.2,000/- with a warning not to repeat such type of mistakes in future. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner herein preferred an appeal before the Joint Collector, Chittoor which was dismissed by order dated.04-09-2008 with a direction to the Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer to take action for issuance of authorization to the 4th respondent and further direction to the Tahasildar, Vedurukuppam to collect Demand Draft for the next month onwards and release the essential commodities in her name. Aggrieved by the said order, the present writ petition is filed. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 3. At the outset, the learned Government Pleader raised an objection as to the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that as against the impugned order passed by the Joint Collector, an alternative remedy of revision is available before the District Collector and without exhausting such remedy the petitioner cannot maintain the writ petition. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that since the impugned order is without jurisdiction not withstanding the availability of the alternative remedy, this writ petition is maintainable. I do not ﬁnd any merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner since under Clause.20 of The Andhra Pradesh State Public Distribution System Control Order,2001, the 1st respondent – Joint Collector is the appellate authority and the appeal was rightly entertained and decided by him. The learned counsel further contended that since the appeal was dismissed by the 1st respondent on the ground that the petitioner being a temporary dealer has no locus standi, the same is ex facie erroneous being contrary to the decision of a Full Bench of this Court reported in M.Vanaja Vs. B.Balaseshanna and others([1]) and therefore the interference by this Court is necessary. It is true that the 1st respondent observed that being a temporary dealer the petitioner has no locus stndi. However the appeal was not dismissed on that sole ground but the 1st respondent after considering all other aspects in the light of the material available on record, recorded a clear ﬁnding that the order passed by the 2nd respondent does not suﬀer from any infirmity. Hence, the said contention of the petitioner is also liable to be rejected. Accordingly the writ petition is disposed of leaving it open to the petitioner to work out the alternative remedy of revision if he so chooses. If any such revision is ﬁled, the same shall be considered and disposed of in accordance with law without being inﬂuenced by any of the observations made by this Court on merits. No order as to costs. _________ G.ROHINI,J 19th September,2008 *TSNR [1] 2007(4) ALD 388(F.B)