Availability of a statutory revision remedy warrants writ disposal, with delay condoned for pursuing it.

The petitioner challenged the order dated 4 December 2016 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sasaram, whereby his licence was cancelled on the ground that his show-cause reply was unsatisfactory.

He also challenged the order dated 8 June 2018 passed by the Collector, Rohtas, in Supply Appeal No. 12 of 2016, dismissing his appeal against the cancellation order.

The petitioner sought restoration of his licence and allotment.

During the writ proceedings, the respondents pointed out that a statutory revision lay before the Divisional Commissioner under Section 32(vi) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016.

The petitioner stated that he intended to pursue that remedy but that the limitation period had expired, and requested permission to file the revision with the delay condoned.

Whether the writ petition should be entertained when the petitioner had an alternative statutory remedy of revision before the Divisional Commissioner under Section 32(vi) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016.

Whether the petitioner could be permitted to file the revision after expiry of the limitation period and, if so, whether the delay should be condoned.

Whether the Divisional Commissioner should be directed to decide the revision within a specified period.

The Court applied Section 32(v) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, which empowers the appellate authority to stay the operation of the order under appeal pending disposal of the appeal, and Section 32(vi), which provides for a revision before the Divisional Commissioner against an appellate order or where the appeal is not disposed of within sixty days; the revision is to be disposed of within two months.

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

In relation to limitation, the Court acted on the petitioner’s request for condonation under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and directed that the delay be condoned.

Since the impugned order was passed by the District Magistrate/Collector in the statutory appeal, the Court found that Section 32(vi) expressly provided an alternative revisional remedy before the Divisional Commissioner.

Consequently, instead of examining the merits of the licence cancellation or dismissal of the appeal in writ jurisdiction, the Court directed the petitioner to pursue the statutory revision.

Recognising that the prescribed period had expired, the Court permitted the petitioner to file the revision within four weeks from receipt of the judgment and directed that the delay be condoned.

The statutory requirement for expeditious disposal was reinforced by directing decision of the revision within two months from its filing.

The petitioner was directed to file a revision before the Divisional Commissioner within four weeks from receipt of the judgment; the delay was directed to be condoned, and the Divisional Commissioner was directed to dispose of the revision within two months from its filing.

Any pending interlocutory applications were also disposed of.