An effective Rule 32(vii) representation remedy warrants disposal of the writ petition.

The petitioner, a Public Distribution System (PDS) dealer, held PDS Dealer Licence No. 15030103/18 issued on 3 July 2018.

Her licence was cancelled by the competent authority. The petitioner challenged the cancellation before the appellate/revisional authorities, but the cancellation was upheld or allowed to stand through orders dated 29 October 2021, 3 January 2022, and 15 September 2022.

She consequently filed the present writ petition seeking quashing of those orders and restoration of her PDS licence.

During hearing, the petitioner relied upon Rule 32(vii) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016.

Whether the writ petition should be entertained when the petitioner had an alternative and effective remedy of filing a 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 cancellation and appellate/revisional orders before the Principal Secretary under the supervisory/revisional power conferred by Rule 32(vii).

The Court applied Rule 32(vii) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016. Under that provision, the Principal Secretary/Secretary may call for records relating to orders passed by the Divisional Commissioner, District Officer, licensing authority, or Sub-Divisional Officer, either suo motu or on representation.

This power may be exercised where the subordinate authority acted without jurisdiction, exercised its powers 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.

Without examining the merits of the cancellation of the petitioner’s PDS licence or the legality of the orders challenged, the Court found that Rule 32(vii) provided the petitioner with an alternative and effective remedy before the Principal Secretary.

Since the statutory provision empowered the Principal Secretary to examine the relevant records and determine whether the subordinate authorities had acted illegally, without jurisdiction, or without properly considering the facts, the Court considered it appropriate to direct the petitioner to pursue that remedy rather than adjudicate the matter in writ jurisdiction.

The Court further directed that the petitioner be afforded notice and an opportunity of hearing before any decision was taken.

The petitioner was granted liberty to file a representation before the Principal Secretary challenging the cancellation order and the appellate/revisional orders within one month from receipt of the judgment.

The Principal Secretary was directed to decide the representation in accordance with law within three months of its filing.

Any delay was to be considered liberally because the petitioner had approached the High Court within time.

The petitioner was also to be given notice and an opportunity of hearing, and the decision was required to be communicated to her.