Alternative statutory remedy under Rule 32(vii) must be pursued before invoking writ jurisdiction.

The petitioner challenged the order dated 20.07.2023 passed by the Commissioner, Koshi Division, Saharsa, in Supply Revision Case No. 71/2021, whereby his revision was dismissed, as well as the earlier order dated 09.07.2020 passed by the Collector, Saharsa, in Misc. Supply Appeal Case No. 18/2019.

He also sought a direction to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Saharsa, to issue a Public Distribution System licence for Ward No. 5 of Gram Panchayat Golma West, District Saharsa.

During hearing, the petitioner relied upon Rule 32(vii) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, which empowers the Principal Secretary/Secretary of the Department to call for records and examine orders passed by specified authorities in certain circumstances.

Whether the writ petition should be entertained when the petitioner had an alternative and effective remedy by way of representation before the Principal Secretary under Rule 32(vii) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016.

Whether the petitioner should be granted liberty to challenge the orders of the Revisional/Appellate Authority and the cancellation order before the Principal Secretary under Rule 32(vii).

The Court applied Rule 32(vii) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, under which the Principal Secretary/Secretary may call for records, suo motu or upon representation, concerning orders passed by the Divisional Commissioner, District Officer, licensing authority, or Sub-Divisional Officer where such authority has acted without jurisdiction, exercised power illegally without considering the facts, or failed to exercise its powers; the Principal Secretary may thereafter pass an appropriate order.

The Court also applied the principle that a writ petition may ordinarily be declined where an alternative and effective statutory remedy is available.

Since Rule 32(vii) provided the petitioner with an alternative and effective remedy before the Principal Secretary, the High Court considered it unnecessary to adjudicate the legality or merits of the impugned appellate and revisional orders in writ jurisdiction.

The Court therefore disposed of the petition while preserving the petitioner’s right to file a representation challenging the orders. It further directed that the petitioner be afforded notice and an opportunity of hearing before any adverse decision was taken, and that the decision be communicated to him.

The Court also directed that any delay in filing the representation be liberally construed because the petitioner had approached the High Court within time.

The petitioner was granted liberty to file a representation before the Principal Secretary under Rule 32(vii) within one month from receipt of the order, challenging the orders of the Revisional/Appellate Authority and the cancellation order.

The Principal Secretary was directed to decide the representation in accordance with law after providing notice and an opportunity of hearing, and to communicate the decision to the petitioner.

The Court further directed liberal consideration of any delay in filing the representation.