Availability of Alternative Remedy Under Section 32(vii) of Bihar Targeted PDS Control Order Bars Writ Jurisdiction

The petitioner challenged an order dated 27.02.2023 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Tirhut Division, in P.D.S. Revision Case No. 335 of 2022.

This order upheld the District Selection Committee’s decision to grant a Public Distribution System (PDS) license to Respondent No. 9 (Pinki Kumari) for Shop No. 1067 under the "Unreserved Female" category.

The petitioner alleged that Respondent No. 9 originally applied under the "Extremely Backward Class (E.B.C.)" category for Shop No. 1066 and should not have been permitted to supplement her candidature for the unreserved seat.

During the hearing, the respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding the availability of an alternative statutory remedy.

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable in light of the alternative remedy available under the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016.

The court applied Section 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 review orders passed by the Divisional Commissioner, District Officer, or Licensing Authority.

This provision grants the Secretary the authority to intervene if a subordinate authority has exercised powers not entrusted to them, acted illegally without considering facts, or failed to exercise their powers.

The Court observed that the reliefs sought by the petitioner—specifically the quashing of the revisional order and the cancellation of Respondent No. 9's license—fall within the ambit of administrative review as prescribed by the Control Order, 2016.

Without delving into the merits or demerits of the petitioner’s claims regarding the illegal categorization of Respondent No. 9, the Court determined that the petitioner had not exhausted the available statutory channel.

The Court reasoned that since Section 32(vii) provides a specific mechanism for representation to the Principal Secretary against orders of the Divisional Commissioner, the High Court should relegate the matter to that authority for a factual and legal determination.

It directed the petitioner to file a representation before the Principal Secretary within four weeks. The Court ordered that any delay in filing such representation be condoned and directed the authority to dispose of the matter within three months after hearing all concerned parties. All pending interlocutory applications were also disposed of.