An effective statutory representation under Rule 32(vii) warrants disposal of the writ petition without examining merits.

The petitioner’s Public Distribution System (PDS) licence, Licence No. 42/16 for Gram Panchayat Tungi, Bihar Sharif, was cancelled by the Sub-Divisional Officer on 28 May 2019.

His appeal against the cancellation was dismissed by the District Magistrate, Nalanda, on 4 February 2021.

The petitioner earlier challenged these orders in CWJC No. 11176 of 2021; the writ petition was dismissed by a Division Bench on 31 March 2022, with liberty to pursue the revisional remedy.

The petitioner thereafter filed a revision before the Divisional Commissioner, Patna, which was dismissed on 15 June 2023.

He then filed the present writ petition challenging the revisional order, the cancellation order, and the appellate order, and seeking restoration and renewal of his PDS licence.

Whether the writ petition challenging the cancellation, appellate, and revisional orders was maintainable when the petitioner had an alternative remedy under Rule 32(vii) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016.

Whether the petitioner should be permitted to make a representation before the Principal Secretary against the impugned orders under Rule 32(vii).

The Court applied Rule 32(vii) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, which empowers the Principal Secretary or Secretary of the department to 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, and the Principal Secretary may pass an appropriate order.

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

Without examining the merits of the petitioner’s challenge, the Court noted that Rule 32(vii) provided an alternative and effective remedy before the Principal Secretary.

Since the petitioner sought to challenge orders passed by authorities covered by the Rule, the Court considered it appropriate to require him to pursue that statutory remedy rather than adjudicate the matter in writ jurisdiction at that stage.

The Court also protected the petitioner against a limitation objection by directing that any delay in filing the representation be construed liberally, as the petitioner had approached the High Court within time.

It required the Principal Secretary to provide notice and an opportunity of hearing before deciding the representation.

The petitioner was granted liberty to file a representation before the Principal Secretary under Rule 32(vii) of the 2016 Control Order, challenging the revisional, appellate, and cancellation orders, within two months.

The Principal Secretary was directed to consider and decide the representation in accordance with law, after affording the petitioner notice and an opportunity of hearing, and to complete the exercise within two months of receiving the representation.

Any delay was to be liberally construed, and the decision was to be communicated to the petitioner.