IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 13912 of 2008 Between: P.V. Subbama, W/o. Venkata Subbaiah, R/o. Boggidivaripalli Village, Sidhout Mandal, Kadapa District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Joint Collector, Kadapa District, Kadapa. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Rajampet, Kadapa District. 3 The Tahsildar, Sidhout Mandal, Kadapa District. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in not passing any orders in the interlocutory application filed along with the appeal on 07-06-2008 by the petitioner against the orders of the suspension passed by the 2nd respondent in his Ref.D/587/2008 dated 24-05-2008 thougy the Petitioner in having prima vacie case and balance of convenience as illegal, unjust, arbitrary and dilatory discriminative and consquently set aside the suspension order passed by the 2nd respondent in his Ref.D/587/2008 dated 24-05-2008 with further direction to the 1st respondent and to pass orders in the appeal filed by the Petitioner on 07-06-2008 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.L.J.VEERA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following, at the stage of admission : ORAL ORDER: The petitioner’s authorization as a fair price shop dealer for Boggidivaripalli Village, Sidhout Mandal, Kadapa District, was suspended on allegations of commission of certain irregularities, by the 2nd respondent’s order dated 24.5.2008. Aggrieved thereby, she preferred an appeal to the 1st respondent on 7.6.2008 under the provisions of Clause 20 (1) of the A.P. State Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2001. Aggrieved that the 1st respondent has not disposed of the appeal, the writ petition is filed again challenging the order of suspension of authorization by the 2nd respondent. As the petitioner has preferred an appeal, she cannot be permitted to pursue parallel remedies in judicial review and appeal. The substantive relief is therefore misconceived. However, the 1st respondent has merely to consider an appeal against an order of interim suspension where the consideration is on a narrow locus. In the circumstances, the Writ Petition is disposed of at the stage of admission, after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies, directing the 1st respondent to expeditiously and in any event, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, consider and dispose of the petitioner’s appeal dated 7.6.2008, by a reasoned order. There shall be no order as to costs. GODA RAGHURAM, J Date: 1.7.2008 cvm