THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.29771 of 2011 Date: 09.11.2011 Between: N. Mallikarjun Rao … Petitioner and The Assistant Supply Officer, Circle-II, Uppal, Ranga Reddy District and others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.29771 of 2011 ORDER : Heard Sri W.B. Srinivas, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, as well as the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for the respondents and with their consent the writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage. 2. This writ petition has been filed assailing the order in Proc.No.A/ASO-II/1244/2011, dated 17.10.2011, issued by the 1st respondent-Assistant Supply Officer, Circle-II, Uppal, Ranga Reddy District, suspending the authorization of the petitioner pending enquiry, as illegal and without jurisdiction. 3. The petitioner is a Fair Price Shop dealer of Shop No.184, Srinivasapuram Colony, Ramanthapur Village, Uppal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. His authorisation is valid upto 31.03.2012. On 17.10.2011, the Inspector of Police, Uppal Police Station, Cyberabad, has intercepted a lorry bearing No.RJ-GA- 5236 with 340 bags of rice, which are said to be belonging to the petitioner. The said Inspector of Police, having seized the stock, handed over the vehicle along with the stock to the 1st respondent for necessary action. During the course of inspection of the petitioner’s shop, as there are variations in the stock, the 1st respondent seized the entire stock alleging contravention of Clause 17(a) of the A.P. State Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008 (for brevity “the Control Order”) and submitted a report 17.10.2011 before the 3rd respondent-Collector (CS), Ranga Reddy District, for eventual action under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. In view of seizure of the stock and the alleged contravention of the provisions of the Control Order, exercising the powers conferred under the proviso to Clause 5(7) of the Control Order, the 1st respondent passed the impugned order dated 17.10.2011 suspending the authorisation of the petitioner pending enquiry. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the 3rd respondent along with an application seeking stay on 01.11.2011. As the 3rd respondent has not taken any action either to dispose of the said appeal or to pass orders on the stay application, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition for the aforesaid relief. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that since second proviso to Clause 5(7) of the Control Order authorizes only the disciplinary authority to suspend or cancel the authorisation, the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent is without jurisdiction. The jurisdiction, in the instant case, falls in Ranga Reddy District, which is outside the city area. The 1st respondent, therefore, is not competent to pass the impugned order. The learned counsel further submits that the variations pointed out are minor in nature and liable to be exempted in view of Clause 24 of the Control Order. 5. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that the petitioner has already invoked the Statutory remedy of appeal before the 3rd respondent-appellate authority and all these questions can be raised before the said appellate authority. 6. Admittedly, as against the impugned order, the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the 3rd respondent on 01.11.2011 under Clause 20 of the Control Order along with an application seeking stay. Therefore, he cannot pursue a parallel remedy challenging the very same order by way of filing the present writ petition. Since the petitioner has already availed the statutory remedy of appeal before the 3rd respondent, he is always at liberty to urge all the grounds, including the questions of law as well as facts, before the said appellate authority. Therefore, I am not inclined to entertain the present writ petition. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that even though the appeal along with a stay application was filed on 01.11.2011, the 3rd respondent is not likely to take up the matter within a reasonable time. The learned counsel, therefore, seeks a short relief that the 3rd respondent be directed to consider the said application for stay within a reasonable time. 8. The learned Assistant Government Pleader has no objection for issuing such a direction. 9. Indisputably, the appeal along with the stay application has been filed on 01.11.2011 and the 3rd respondent, being the appellate authority, is expected to consider the said appeal or pass appropriate orders on the stay application within a reasonable time in order to avoid hardship to the petitioner. 10. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, while declining to grant the relief sought for in the writ petition, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing the 3rd respondent-Collector (CS), Ranga Reddy District, to consider the application for stay filed by the petitioner along with the appeal preferred against the impugned order dated 17.10.2011 of the 1st respondent and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs. ________________________ JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI 09.11.2011. NOTE: Issue C.C. by 10.11.2011. (B/O) Msr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.29771 of 2011 09.11.2011 (Msr)