THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI Writ Petition No.28442 of 2011 ORDER : The petitioner, a fair price shop dealer, has challenged the orders of the Revenue Divisional Officer, 04th respondent herein, in proceedings No.1609/2011, dated 07-09-2011 suspending the authorization, as illegal. On a petition submitted by the villagers of Thamploor village to the District Collector, Medak alleging that the petitioner committed some irregularities in the distribution of essential commodities, the Deputy Tahsildar (Civil Supplies), Papannapet, conducted an enquiry and submitted a report dated 11-08-2010. According to the report, the petitioner indulged in clandestine business in the distribution of essential commodities by making fictitious entries in the books and diverting the PDS rice to black market. Taking cognizance of the said report, the 4th respondent herein passed the impugned order suspending the authorization. Heard Sri K.S.Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for respondents. Sri K.S.Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that allegations are baseless. He submits that the petitioner did not issue commodities and that the names of the cardholders were repeated on account of an error in the computer master list. He further contends that the Deputy Tahsildar conducted enquiry without notice to the petitioner and the same therefore cannot be relied upon. I am not inclined to go into the merits of the aforesaid contentions in view of the fact that the petitioner has already challenged the very same order by filing a statutory appeal under Clause-20 (2)(i) of A.P. State Public Distribution System (Control) order, 2008 before the Joint Collector (Civil Supplies) at Sanga Reddy, Medak District, the 03rd respondent herein. The petitioner having invoked the said remedy cannot pursue the parallel remedy by filing this writ petition. In the circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even though the appeal was presented on 22-09-2011, the 3rd respondent has not taken up the appeal for consideration till date and that there is no likelihood of his taking up the appeal within a reasonable time. The counsel therefore submits that the 3rd respondent be directed to consider and dispose of the appeal within a time frame in order to avoid hardship to the petitioner. There does not appear to be any dispute that the appeal was filed on 22-09-2011 and considerable time has elapsed since then. In matters of this nature the statutory authorities are expected to consider the mattes expeditiously so that hardship is avoided to the parties. For the aforesaid reasons, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case directing the 3rd Respondent to dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioner as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of the receipt of a copy of the order. Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. ________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J. 20th October, 2011. Note : Issue C.C. in two days. B/O skmr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI Writ Petition No.28442 of 2011 Date : 20-10-2011 Between : Smt.G.Swarupa Rani .. Petitioner and Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Civil Supplies Department, Hyderabad & 3 Others. .. Respondents