IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 18108 of 2008 Between: Sri Thota Ashok S/o.Thota Devdas R/o.Rangapur village, Kothur Mandal Mahaboobnagar Dstrict ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, Mahaboobnagar, Mahaboobnagar District. 2 The Joint Collector, Mahabuboobnagar, Mahaboobnagar District. 3 The Revenue Divisional officer, Mahaboobnagar, Mahaboobnagar District. 4 The Tahsildar, Kothur, Mahaboobnagar District 5 J.Srinivasulu S/o.Krishnaiah R/o.Rangapur village Kothur Mandal Mahaboobnagar District .....RESPONDENTS 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 of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction declaring the orders of the 3rd respondent vide Proceedings No.J/746/2008 dated .8.2008 by removing the petitioner and appointing the 5th respondent as F.P.Shop Dealer of Rangapur on the basis of the proceedings of the 2nd respondent in Case No.CS4/19/2008 dated 7.6.2008 village as illegal, arbitrary, and unreasonable and also in violation of Art.14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and also principles of natural justice and set aside the proceedings of the 3rd respondent vide Proceedings No.J/746/2008 dated .8.2008 and further set aside the proceedings of the 2nd respondent vide Case No.CS4/19/2008 dated 7.6.2008 and consequently direct the respondents to continue the petitioner as F.P.Shop Dealer of Rangapur village, Kothur Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District. Counsel for the Petitioner:Mr.P.VISHNUVARDHAN REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following : ORDER: Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. 2. Petitioner assails the order of the 2nd respondent, dated 07-06-2008, allowing the appeal of the 5th respondent. 3. Petitioner and the 5th respondent applied for grant of permanent authorization for the vacant fair price shop in Rangapur village, Kothur mandal, Mahaboobnagar District pursuant to the notiﬁcation, dated 18-12-2007, issued by the 3rd respondent. Pursuant to the interviews conducted on 17-12-2007, in the selection process the petitioner was granted authorization by an order, dated 18-12-2007, on a comparative assessment of the candidature of the petitioner and the 5th respondent. 4. Aggrieved thereby the 5th respondent preferred an appeal to the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent on the ground that the petitioner is already employed with the H.P.Gas, Kothur as an Electrician on a contract basis, concluded that the petitioner was ineligible for grant of authorization and by an order, dated 07-06- 2008, allowed the appeal of the 5th respondent and set aside the order of appointment of the petitioner. It appears that consequent to the order of the 2nd respondent, the 3rd respondent has passed a fresh order granting authorization in favour of the 5th respondent. Assailing the order of the 2nd respondent, dated 07-06- 2008, allowing the appeal of the 5th respondent, this Writ Petition is filed. 5. Against the appellate order of the 2nd respondent, impugned in this Writ Petition, the petitioner has a revisional remedy before the 1st respondent under Clause 21 of the Control Order, 2008. The said remedy is an eﬀective and alternative remedy. The revisional authority has ample jurisdiction in exercise of the revisional power to go into the issue as to whether the petitioner was granted adequate and fair opportunity before the appellate order was passed by the 2nd respondent; whether the mere engagement of the petitioner on a contract basis with H.P.Gas, Kothur mandal constitutes a disqualiﬁcation for grant of a permanent authorization; and whether the reasons given by the 2nd respondent for allowing the appeal, are germane and rational. 6. In view of the availability of an alternative eﬃcacious remedy of revision before the 1st respondent, this Court is not inclined to entertain this Writ Petition. 7. Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission with a liberty to pursue the revisional remedy before the 1st respondent under Clause 21 of the Control Order, 2008. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ GODA RAGHURAM,J 20th August, 2008. Note: Furnish C.C. of the order within one week. B/o Tsy To 1 The District Collector, Mahaboobnagar, Mahaboobnagar District. 2 The Joint Collector, Mahabuboobnagar, Mahaboobnagar District. 3 The Revenue Divisional officer, Mahaboobnagar, Mahaboobnagar District. 4 The Tahsildar, Kothur, Mahaboobnagar District 5. 2CCs to the GP for Civil Supplies. 6. 2CD copies