IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 17606 of 2008 Between: K.Balasubramanyam S/o. Venkataramaiah Tekumanda Village and Post, Bangarupalem Mandal, Chittoor District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Joint Collector, Chittoor. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Chittoor. 3 K.Sumathi W/o. Sri Rajendarudu Tekumanda Village & Post, Bangarupalem Mandal, Chittoor 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, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the order of the 2nd respondent in D.Dis.B/1576/08 dated 18- 07-2008 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of G.O.Ms.No. 53 Consumer Affairs, Food and Civil Supplies (C.S.I) Department dated 06.10.2003 and consequently pass such other or further orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.V.BHATT Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES Counsel for the Respondent No.3: None The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO :17606 of 2008 ORDER: The third respondent was selected for grant of authorization on permanent basis for the fair price shop of Tekumanda Village, Bangarupalem Mandal, Chittoor District qua the proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated 18.7.2008. The petitioner alleges that the process of selection was arbitrary; and that the 3% reservation for the physically handicapped, as mandated in the guidelines issued in G.O.Ms.No. 53, Consumer Affairs, Food and Civil Supplies (C.S.I) Department, dated 6.10.2003, with a Division as a Unit, has not been maintained and if maintained, the petitioner ought to have been preferentially considered in the quota reserved for the physically handicapped. The petitioner aggrieved by the selection of the 3rd respondent, has preferred an appeal to the 1st respondent on 2.8.2008, but has yet filed the writ petition challenging the 2nd respondent’s order dated 18.7.2008 selecting the 3rd respondent for grant of authorization. The petitioner cannot be permitted to pursue parallel remedies. On the aforesaid analysis, the writ petition is disposed of. The 1st respondent shall consider the appeal of the petitioner expeditiously, and, in any event, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and shall record reasons for the analysis and conclusions on the several aspects urged by the petitioner in the appeal. A communication of the decision of the 1st respondent shall occur within the period stipulated above. The writ petition is disposed of as above at the stage of admission. No costs. ____________________ GODA RAGHURAM,J DATE: 14th August, 2008 Pnb