IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE NINETH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.4459 of 2011 Between: Jalle Poolamma ..... Petitioner AND The Govt., of A.P., rep., by its Secretary Consumer Affairs Food & Civil Supplies Dept., Hyderabad & others. .....Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri A. Ravinder Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Civil Supplies The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.4459 of 2011 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside proceedings No.F2/1874/2009-2 dated 20.12.2010 of respondent No.2, whereby he has bifurcated the existing shop of Nagaram Village, Nekkonda Mandal, Warangal District. On being pointed out that the petitioner has an alternative remedy of appeal under G.O.Ms.No.25 dated 18.03.1998, the petitioner filed WPMP.No.6236 of 2011 for amendment of the Writ Petition in order to question the said G.O. The premise on which the said G.O. was questioned is that the A.P. Scheduled Commodities Dealers’ (Licensing and Distribution) Order 1982 (for short, “1982 Control Order”) has made a limited provision for appeal against suspension and cancellation of authorization only and therefore keeping the said provision in view, G.O.Ms.No.25, dated 18.03.1998 was issued providing for an appeal. It is further pleaded that as the A.P. Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008 (for short, “2008 Control Order”) provided for appeals even in cases where orders were passed amending or varying the authorizations of fair price shop dealers, G.O.Ms.No.25 has become redundant and the same runs counter to the statutory provisions of the control order. Having carefully considered these pleas, I find that the same are totally misconceived because the 1982 control order does not deal with the fair price shops. When G.O.Ms.No.25, dated 18.03.1998 was issued, it was A.P. Scheduled Commodities (Regulation of Distribution by Card System) Order, 1973 that was in force, which contained clause (4), which is similar to the corresponding provision in the 2008 control order relating to power of vary, amend, suspend or cancel the authorizations. Moreover, a perusal of G.O.Ms.No.25 clearly shows that with a view to create an appellate forum against the orders of bifurcation, the same was issued. Therefore, I find no merit in the pleas raised by the petitioner. As the petitioner is provided with an effective alternative remedy of an appeal, I am not inclined to entertain this Writ Petition. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal in terms of G.O.Ms.No.25. To enable the petitioner to seek appropriate order in the proposed appeal, the respondents are directed not to finalize the selections in pursuance of the impugned notification for a period of two weeks. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, WPMP Nos.5517 and 6236 of 2011 are also dismissed. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 09.03.2011 ES