Alternative Remedy Under PDS Control Order Bars Writ Jurisdiction; Condonation of Delay Directed for Statutory Representation

The petitioner, a Fair Price Shop dealer holding License No. 27TR/2007, challenged the order dated 12.11.2016 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO), Kishanganj, which cancelled his license under the PDS (Control) Order.

The petitioner sought a writ to set aside the cancellation and restore the license, alleging the order was illegal.

The respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition, citing the availability of statutory alternative remedies.

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable in light of the alternative remedies available under the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016.

2. Whether the petitioner can be granted liberty to approach the revisional authority despite the expiry of the limitation period.

The Court applied the provisions of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016. Specifically, Section 32(iii) provides that an aggrieved party may appeal a license cancellation to the District Officer within thirty days.

Section 32(vi) provides for a revision before the Divisional Commissioner against an appellate order or in cases of non-disposal of an appeal within sixty days.

Furthermore, the Court acknowledged the principle of condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, to ensure the exhaustion of alternative remedies.

The Court observed that the petitioner had not exhausted the statutory remedies provided under the 2016 Order.

Although the law suggests an appeal to the District Magistrate (District Officer), the Court noted a procedural conflict: since the District Magistrate heads the Selection Committee, he cannot review his own administrative decisions in an appellate capacity.

Consequently, the Court determined that the appropriate course of action for the petitioner was to approach the Divisional Commissioner.

Addressing the petitioner's concern regarding the expired limitation period, the Court reasoned that the interests of justice required a direction to the authority to entertain the representation/application by condoning the delay, provided it is filed within a specific timeframe.

The Court ordered the concerned authority to condone the delay in filing and to dispose of the matter on its merits within three months of receipt. All pending interlocutory applications were also disposed of.