Appellate authorities cannot reject COVID-delayed appeals solely on limitation contrary to Supreme Court directions.

The petitioner, a PDS licensee, challenged the order dated 12 June 2019 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Teghra, cancelling her licence under the Bihar Targeted Distribution System Control Order, 2016, allegedly without providing an opportunity of hearing.

During the pendency of the writ petition, she filed P.D.S. Appeal No. 8 of 2021 before the District Magistrate, Begusarai, which was dismissed on 5 October 2021 as barred by limitation.

Her revision before the Divisional Commissioner, Munger, being Supply Revision Case No. 159 of 2022, was also dismissed on 30 September 2022 on limitation grounds.

The petitioner contended that the delay was attributable to the COVID-19 pandemic and that the authorities had failed to consider the Supreme Court’s limitation-relaxation directions.

Whether the Appellate Authority and the Divisional Commissioner acted unlawfully in rejecting the petitioner’s appeal and revision solely on the ground of limitation without considering the Supreme Court’s COVID-19 limitation-relaxation directions?

Whether the matter should be remitted to the Appellate Authority for adjudication of the petitioner’s challenge to the cancellation of her PDS licence on merits?

The Court applied the Bihar Targeted Distribution System Control Order, 2016, under which the licensing authority exercised power to cancel the petitioner’s PDS licence.

It further applied the principles of natural justice, particularly the requirement of a fair opportunity of hearing before adverse administrative action, as raised in relation to the original cancellation order.

The Court also relied on the Supreme Court’s directions issued during the COVID-19 pandemic extending or relaxing limitation periods for proceedings before courts and authorities, recognising that restrictions prevented persons from approaching legal forums within the ordinary limitation period.

The Court found that the Appellate Authority and the Divisional Commissioner had rejected the petitioner’s statutory remedies exclusively on limitation grounds, without adequately considering the exceptional circumstances created by the COVID-19 pandemic and the Supreme Court’s limitation-related directions.

Since the petitioner’s challenge to the cancellation order had not been examined on merits, the limitation-based orders were held to be arbitrary and illegal.

The Court therefore set aside both orders and considered it appropriate to remit the matter to the Appellate Authority for a fresh decision after hearing the parties.

The petitioner was directed to file a fresh appeal within one month of receiving the High Court’s order, and the Appellate Authority was directed to decide it on merits by a reasoned and speaking order, after granting a fair hearing to both parties, within three months from the date of filing.

The original cancellation order was not finally adjudicated on merits and remained subject to the fresh appellate proceedings.