IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 7848 of 2008 Between: Gaddam Poli Reddy, S/o. Venkata Subba Reddy, Sirasanambedu Village, Pellakur Mandal, Nellore District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Joint Collector, Nellore, Nellore District. 2 The Sub-Collector, Gudur, Nellore District. 3 The Tahasildar, Pellakur Mandal, Nellore District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.V.SUDHAKAR REDDY 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 declare the action of respondent No.1 in not passing any order either in the appeal or the stay petition filed by the petitioner before him against order, dated 04.03.2008 passed by respondent No.2. The fair price shop authorization of the petitioner in respect of Sirasanambedu Village, Pellakur Mandal, Nellore District was cancelled by respondent No.2 vide his proceedings Rc.C.127/08, dated 04.03.2008. Questioning the said order, the petitioner claimed to have filed an appeal before respondent No.1 on 24.03.2008 along with an application for stay. As respondent No.1 has not passed orders thereon, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. Sri V.Sudhakar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the very order of respondent No.2 whereby he cancelled the authorization of the petitioner’s fair price shop is per se illegal since before passing the said order, he failed to issue a show cause notice and that he based his order solely on the show cause notice cum suspension order issued by respondent No.3 vide proceedings, dated 25.05.2007. He further submitted that the Tahsildar, Pellakur is not the disciplinary authority and, therefore, he had no jurisdiction to issue show cause notice. The learned counsel further submitted that since the very order of cancellation is illegal, the same is liable to be set aside. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. On the petitioner’s own showing, he filed an appeal before respondent No.1 questioning the validity or otherwise of the order of respondent No.2, cancelling his authorization. The questions whether the Tahsildar had jurisdiction to issue show cause notice and that the order of respondent No.2 without issuing a separate show cause notice is legal or valid, are required to be adjudicated before respondent No.1. Having already availed the remedy of appeal, it is not permissible for the petitioner to canvass the correctness or otherwise of the order of respondent No.2, which is the subject matter of such appeal. In this view of the matter, I am not inclined to adjudicate on the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, touching the merits of the order passed by respondent No.2. For the above-mentioned reasons, the writ petition is disposed of. Respondent No.1 is directed to dispose of the appeal said to have been filed by the petitioner within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is needless to observe that pending the appeal, the respondents should not fill up the vacancy on permanent basis. As a sequel to disposal of main petition, WPMP.No.10327 of 2008 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 10th APRIL, 2008 Note: issue c.c. in one week. B/o kvni