Availability of alternative statutory remedy bars writ jurisdiction; petitioner directed to exhaust appellate/revisional remedies.

The petitioner, a Public Distribution System (PDS) shop licensee (License No. 01/2010), challenged the cancellation of his license via a writ petition.

The cancellation was ordered by the Sub Divisional Officer, Bettiah Sadar, through Memo No. 04 dated 18/09/2013.

The petitioner contended the cancellation was illegal and unjust.

During the proceedings, the respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition, arguing that the petitioner failed to exhaust available statutory alternative remedies.

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

2. Whether the court should direct the concerned authority to entertain the petitioner’s representation/appeal despite the expiration of the limitation period?

Section 32(iii) [of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016] provides for an appeal to the District Officer against the cancellation of a license within thirty days.

Section 32(vi) [of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016] provides for a revision before the Divisional Commissioner if an appeal is not disposed of within sixty days or against an appellate order.

Section 5 of the Limitation Act allows for the condonation of delay in filing applications/appeals upon showing sufficient cause.

The court observed that the reliefs sought by the petitioner fell squarely within the ambit of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, which mandates a specific hierarchy for grievances.

Since Sections 32(iii) and 32(vi) provide robust alternative remedies of appeal and revision, the court found it unnecessary to exercise its extraordinary writ jurisdiction at this stage.

Regarding the petitioner's concern over the lapsed limitation period, the court noted his intention to file a representation and determined that justice would be served by allowing him to approach the statutory authority with a direction for the authority to condone the delay.

The court specifically ordered the authority to condone the delay and dispose of the matter on its merits within three months of filing.

The High Court disposed of the writ petition without interfering with the cancellation order directly... directed the petitioner to file a representation/appeal before the concerned authority within two months of the order.