Availability of Alternative Statutory Remedy Precludes High Court’s Exercise of Writ Jurisdiction

The petitioner, a Public Distribution System (PDS) dealer in Darbhanga, filed a writ petition seeking an allotment for his shop, which had been tagged with another dealer’s shop

During the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner’s license was reportedly suspended or cancelled, though he claimed no formal order was served

The petitioner approached the High Court challenging the tagging and the subsequent (alleged) cancellation of the license

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 delay in filing an appeal/representation can be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act given the pendency of the writ proceedings

Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, specifically Section 32(iii), which mandates an appeal to the District Officer against license cancellation within thirty days; Section 32(v), regarding stay operations; and Section 32(vi), providing for a revision before the Divisional Commissioner

Section 5 of the Limitation Act regarding the condonation of delay for filing representations/appeals

The Court observed that the reliefs sought by the petitioner fell squarely within the regulatory framework of the Bihar PDS Control Order, 2016. Specifically, Sections 32(iii) and 32(vi) provide a structured hierarchy for grievances, including appeal and revision.

Since an efficacious alternative remedy existed, the Court found it inappropriate to exercise its extraordinary writ jurisdiction.

Addressing the petitioner's concern regarding the expiry of the limitation period during the pendency of this case, the Court reasoned that the petitioner should be allowed to approach the competent authority, and the time spent in litigation should be considered for condoning the delay.

It directed the petitioner to file a representation/appeal before the concerned authority within one month from the date of the order and ordered the authority to condone the delay in filing and to dispose of the matter on its merits within three months of receipt.