THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.254 of 2010 Dated:02.03.2010 Between: Smt.Rajeswari. …Petitioner and The District Collector, Anantapur, And others. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.254 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner was appointed as a fair price shop dealer in 1995 at Chinnarajupally Village of Kothacheruru Mandal in Anantapur District. The dealership was suspended by respondent No.3 on 29.07.2005. She preferred appeal to respondent No.2 who directed to enquire into the matter and pass appropriate orders. In the meanwhile, the petitioner’s authorization was restored. After conducting enquiry, respondent No.3 passed orders on 15.09.2009 exonerating the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, respondent No.5 who was appointed as temporary dealer filed an appeal before respondent No.2 which was allowed on 21.12.2009 relying on the Andhra Pradesh Public Distribution System (Control) Order 2001. The petitioner then preferred a revision under the Andhra Pradesh Public Distribution System Control Order 2008, inter alia, contending that 2001 Control Order having been superceded by 2008 Control Order has no application. Revision is pending before the District Collector, respondent No.1 herein. But, still the petitioner assailed the order of respondent No.2 before this Court in this writ petition. This Court while ordering notice before admission directed status quo to be maintained. When the matter is called today the Writ Petition is opposed, inter alia, on the ground that the petitioner cannot pursue the statutory remedy of revision and writ petition simultaneously. It is now well settled that when an aggrieved person avails effective alternative remedy provided by the relevant statute, simultaneously he cannot file a writ petition (See Bombay Region Development Authority v Gokul Patel[1]) Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the orders passed by respondent No.2 at this stage, which is under revision. However, the order of status quo granted by this Court on 12.01.2010 shall continue, and respondent No.1 is also directed to dispose of the revision within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order after giving notice to the petitioner and respondent No.5. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 02.03.2010 vs [1] (1995) 1 SCC 642