HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION NO. 23349 OF 2011 Thursday, the Eighteenth day of August, Two Thousand and Eleven Between Siripireddy Sudhamani Petitioner AND The Govt. of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. By its Principal Secretary, Civil Supplies Department, Secretariat Building, Hyderabad and others Respondents ORDER: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. K.Suresh Reddy and the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies for the respondents. The petitioner, a fair price shop dealer, has filed this writ petition assailing the order passed by the third respondent – Revenue Divisional Officer, Rajampt, Kadapa District in Ref. No.D/1132/2011 dated 27.7.2011 whereunder the authorization has been suspended pending disciplinary proceedings. The petitioner is a fair price shop dealer of Vellalavaripalli village of Gopavaram mandal. The Tahsildar, Gopavaram, inspected the shop on 14.7.2011 and found certain irregularities committed by the petitioner. It was found that the petitioner failed to exhibit the details of stock balance of the commodities on the board on 14.7.2011 and that there was variation of 18 quintals of PDS rice and 2 quintals of sugar. Basing on the report filed to that effect, the third respondent passed an order dated 27.7.2011, suspending the authorization as an interim measure. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed an appeal along with stay petition before the District Collector, Kadapa, second respondent herein, and as the second respondent has not considered either the appeal or the stay petition, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking aforesaid relief. Admittedly, the petitioner has assailed the impugned order by failing an appeal before the second respondent. Therefore, without exhausting appeal remedy, the petitioner is not entitled to pursue a parallel remedy challenging the very same order. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however submits that even though the appeal was filed along with the stay petition, the second respondent has not taken any steps considering either the stay application or the appeal. Learned counsel further submits that the irregularities alleged are trivial in nature and the variation alleged is within the permissible limit, in terms of Clause 24 of the A.P. State Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008. Learned counsel, therefore, submits that the suspension of authorization in such circumstances is unwarranted. Reliance is also placed on a judgment of this court in Nune Varalakshmi Vs. Joint Collector (FAC), Kadapa and others ([1]), wherein this court has held that the extreme action of suspension of authorization on a flimsy ground of negligible variation in quantity of rice constitutes patent arbitrariness. This court also held that whether the explanations offered by the parties during enquiry are acceptable or not requires to be examined by the disciplinary authority in the enquiry proceedings. In the instant case, a perusal of the order dated 27.7.2011 passed by the third respondent prima faice shows that the stock variation is within the permissible limits and insofar as the allegation that the petitioner failed to exhibit the details of stock balances, appears to be a technical irregularity. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition at the stage of admission as follows: a) The second respondent shall consider the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the orders of the third respondent dated 27.7.2011 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order; and b) Until final orders are passed in the appeal, the order of the third respondent dated 27.7.2011 in Ref. No.D/1132/2011, shall remain suspended. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. ___________________ Justice Noushad Ali August 18, 2011 MAS [1] 2011 (1) ALT 626