Judgment : This Writ Petition is instituted questioning the validity of the orders passed on 25.10.2011 by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tekkali restoring the authorization of the fair price shop run and managed by the 5th respondent of Srimukhalingam-I. The 5th respondent is an authorized fair price shop dealer of shop No.1 at Srimukhalingam Village of Jalumuru Mandal, Srikakulam District. On 28.11.2004, the Tahsildar, Jalumuru lodged a complaint against the 5th respondent holding that the 5th respondent was selling the essential commodities, namely rice, sugar and kerosene oil at a rate which is higher than the rate prescribed by the State Government. In view of the said complaint made by the cardholders, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tekkali passed orders on 02.12.2004 suspending the authorization of the 5th respondent. Since an appeal would lie there against, the 5th respondent had carried the matter in appeal before the Joint Collector, Srikakulam, who rejected the same on 01.10.2005 and directed the Revenue Divisional Officer to complete the enquiry within four weeks. In the meantime, the writ petitioner has been appointed as a temporary dealer for running and managing the fair price shop as the organizer of Sri Someswara Swayam Shakthi Sangam (a self-help group). Nearly six years thereafter, the Revenue Divisional Officer issued a show cause notice on 24.09.2011 calling for the explanation of the 5th respondent which was submitted by him on 02.10.2011. In view of the denial of the allegations by the 5th respondent, a further report was called for from the Tahsildar, Jalumuru by the Revenue Divisional Officer. It appears, the Tahsildar has submitted a report on 21.10.2011 pointing out that when he visited the village, the cardholders have informed him that because of the prevailing village politics, they have complained against the 5th respondent and that there is no truth behind the same. However, the Revenue Divisional Officer passed final orders on 25.10.2011 restoring the authorization of the 5th respondent for shop No.1 of Srimukhalingam Village after imposing a fine of Rs.1,000/-, duly administering a warning to be more careful in future in running the fair price shop. This order is challenged in this Writ Petition on the ground that it is arbitrary and in violation of the principles of natural justice. Heard Sri Uma Sankar Lokanadham, learned counsel for the writ petitioner as well as the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. This order is challenged in this Writ Petition on the ground that it is arbitrary and in violation of the principles of natural justice. Heard Sri Uma Sankar Lokanadham, learned counsel for the writ petitioner as well as the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner would contend that the writ petitioner was not even put on notice and consequently, she has been denied the right to participate in the enquiry against the 5th respondent. This contention is devoid of any merit. The writ petitioner has been chosen to be a temporary dealer, in view of the suspension of the authorization of the 5th respondent, to enable the essential commodities to be distributed to the cardholders. That was a measure resorted to, so that no inconvenience to the cardholders in drawing the essential commodities is caused all due to the disciplinary action initiated against the 5th respondent. Therefore, the writ petitioner has no right of any manner, for the Revenue Divisional Officer to put her on notice and provide her an opportunity of hearing while conducing the enquiry against the 5th respondent. As it is too well-known, the principles of natural justice will have application only when civil rights of any party are sought to be impacted or wherever civil consequences are likely to flow from any adverse order upon an individual. In the instant case, the writ petitioner has been chosen, being the organizer of a self-help group, to be a temporary dealer. The relevant portion of the order passed on 02.12.2004 by the Revenue Divisional Officer in this regard reads as under: “Smt. S. Narayanamma, Organizer Sri Someswara Swayam Sakthi Sangam is kept in charge to the Mukhalingam-I F.P.Shop to release the E.Cs. and to distribute the E.Cs. to avoid in convenience to the cardholders.” Though the above portion leaves an impression that it is the writ petitioner, who has been chosen as an individual, but nonetheless, it is meant to be the self-help group, which is sought to be assigned the duty of distributing the essential commodities to the cardholders in the interregnum period as an in-charge arrangement as the Revenue Divisional Officer could not have picked up an individual to be a dealer without calling for applications thus providing an opportunity for all other similarly placed persons to compete. Therefore, such an arrangement being purely ad hoc and temporary in nature will not create any civil rights in favour of either the self-help group or the writ petitioner as its Organizing Secretary. Therefore, the question of putting the petitioner on notice as part of principles of natural justice, while conducting an enquiry against the 5th respondent would not arise. Further, as to whether the 5th respondent has truly committed any irregularities in the matter of distribution of essential commodities to the cardholders, is a question between the 5th respondent and the State. Undoubtedly, every cardholder, who has been wronged an equally subsisting interest and right of participation in any such enquiry. The State is subsidizing heavily the price of the essential commodities comprising food grains. Therefore, the financial interests of the State, apart from other compelling reasons, demand the State to ensure that the essential commodities are properly and carefully distributed by every dealer. Then alone, the greater social objective of subsidizing the price of food grains by the State would be legitimized. There is also a corresponding benefit/advantage/patronage derived by the cardholder. He is entitled to demand supply of the essential commodities to the extent of ones entitlement at a subsidized price. Entitlement to receive the essential commodities each month truthfully at a subsidized price creates a subsisting right and interest in such a cardholder. Therefore, a cardholder can be said to have a sustaining interest in any enquiry that is initiated against a fair price shop dealer who is alleged to be indulging in irregularities. The writ petitioner herein is a cardholder. Therefore, she has a subsisting interest in her individual capacity but not in the capacity as a temporary or ad hoc dealer of the fair price shop in place of the 5th respondent. Hence, if the writ petitioner in her individual capacity is aggrieved by the decision taken by the Revenue Divisional Officer to restore the authorization of the 5th respondent only imposing a fine of Rs.1,000/-, the matter must be carried by way of an appeal in terms of Clause 20 of the Andhra Pradesh State Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008, inasmuch as the dispute centers around the questions of fact and nothing else. Whether the 5th respondent has truly distributed the essential commodities to the cardholders in the year 2004 after charging them in excess of the price fixed by the State Government, is a pure question of fact. It has got to be ascertained by examining the cardholders. Such an allegation has been thrown against the 5th respondent by the appointing authority/disciplinary authority. It is for that authority to bring home the charge by examining the appropriate cardholders. If the writ petitioner is willing to make available any such material/evidence, which is reliable and/or credible, it is for the appellate authority to be satisfied as to whether the situation really demands any such enquiry to be conducted afresh. In these circumstances, availing the alternative remedy of preferring an appeal is the most appropriate way for securing resolution of the disputes raised in this Writ Petition. Hence, I do not consider it appropriate to admit this Writ Petition. It is accordingly, dismissed. No costs. However, the learned counsel for the writ petitioner was right in submitting that the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer on 25.10.2011 was not within the knowledge of the writ petitioner till the other day as no such copy was marked or communicated to her. Therefore, if an appeal is preferred by the writ petitioner within 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, the appellate authority would be considerate enough to condone the delay in preferring such an appeal by the writ petitioner and consider the matter on merits, after putting the 5th respondent herein on notice and providing him an appropriate opportunity of hearing.