A writ may be disposed of to allow the petitioner to pursue an available statutory revisionary remedy.

The petitioner, a Public Distribution System (PDS) dealer in Village Anantpur, Jehanabad, held license No. 12/2016.

On 30.08.2017, the Sub Divisional Officer (SDO)-cum-Licensing Officer, Jehanabad, cancelled the petitioner's license.

The petitioner challenged this order in Supply Appeal Case No. 67/D.M./2017 before the Collector/District Magistrate, Jehanabad, which was dismissed on 26.11.2018, confirming the SDO’s order.

The petitioner then approached the High Court via a writ petition seeking the quashing of these orders and restoration of the PDS shop.

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable despite the availability of an alternative statutory remedy under the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016.

2. Whether the delay in filing a revision petition can be condoned to allow the petitioner to exhaust the proper legal channel.

The Court applied Section 32(vi) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, which mandates that a revision against an appellate order passed by a District Officer may be filed before the Divisional Commissioner.

Section 5 of the Limitation Act regarding the condonation of delay in filing such statutory remedies.

The Court observed that the petitioner had approached the High Court directly against the appellate order passed by the District Magistrate.

However, the respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding the existence of an alternative remedy under Section 32(vi) of the 2016 Control Order, which provides for a revision before the Divisional Commissioner.

The petitioner's counsel acknowledged this alternative remedy but highlighted that the limitation period for filing such a revision had already expired.

Drawing a balance between procedural compliance and the right to a remedy, the Court determined that the petitioner should be permitted to pursue the revision, provided the delay is condoned to ensure the case is heard on its merits by the appropriate statutory authority.

The Court disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the petitioner to file a revision petition before the Divisional Commissioner within one month from the receipt of the order, and ordered the Divisional Commissioner to condone the delay and dispose of the revision within three months of filing.

All pending interlocutory applications were also disposed of.