IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF MARCH, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.218 of 2008 Between: Borra Ramesh … Petitioner AND The Tahsildar, Nagaram Mandal, Nagaram, Guntur District & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri A. Sudarshan Reddy Counsel for respondents 1 to 3: AGP for Civil Supplies Counsel for respondent No.4: Sri G. Dharma Rao This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.218 of 2008 ORDER:- WVMP.Nos.302 and 827 of 2008 are filed by respondent Nos.1 to 3 and 4 respectively to vacate order dated 08.01.2008 passed in WPMP.No.226 of 2008 inWP.No.218 of 2008. At the interlocutory stage the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner along with respondent No.4 and others applied for appointment as fair price shop dealer in respect of Allaparru Village, Nagaram Mandal, Guntur District in pursuance of notification dated 12.05.2007 issued by respondent No.2. Written test was conducted on 22.10.2007 and interviews were held on 20.12.2007. On 29.12.2007, respondent No.2 appointed respondent No.4 as fair price shop dealer. Questioning the said order, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. The only ground on which the appointment of respondent No.4 is questioned is that his father was a member of Water Users Association as on the date of the notification issued by respondent No.2 and hence he incurred disqualification by virtue of condition No.10 of said notification. At the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner stated that after filing of the present writ petition, the petitioner filed appeal under clause 20(1) of the A.P. State Public Distribution System Control Order, 2001 before the Joint Collector, Guntur District, questioning the order impugned in this writ petition. Since the petitioner availed the alternative remedy of appeal, I am not inclined to go into the merits of the writ petition and adjudicate whether respondent No.4 incurred disqualification even for applying for appointment as fair price shop dealer or not. The petitioner is therefore relegated to pursue the above pending appeal before the Joint Collector, Guntur, who shall decide whether respondent No.4 was not eligible for being appointed as fair price shop in view of the fact that his father, who was the President of the Water Users Association resigned on 01.12.2007 while respondent No.4 was appointed much later, namely, 29.12.2007. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.226 of 2008 and WVMP.Nos.302 and 827 of 2008 are dismissed. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 18.03.2008 ES