Availability of alternative statutory revisionary remedy precludes exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226.

The petitioner originally held a Public Distribution System (PDS) license (No. 12/99, later renumbered to 03/2008) for a shop under the Primary Agriculture Co-operative Society (PACS), Kurmichak.

In 2010, the shop was allegedly arbitrarily allotted to Respondent No. 6, the newly elected Chairman of PACS.

The petitioner challenged this by filing a representation before the District Magistrate, Patna, which was rejected via Memo No. 1254 dated 01.07.2016.

The petitioner subsequently approached the High Court seeking the quashing of the District Magistrate's order and a direction to allow him to operate the PDS shop.

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

2. Whether the High Court could direct the statutory authority to condone the delay in filing a revision petition after the expiration of the limitation period.

Section 32(vi) [of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016] provides that a revision against an order passed by the District Officer may be filed before the Divisional Commissioner, who is mandated to dispose of such revision within two months.

Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, regarding the power of an authority to condone delays in filing statutory appeals or revisions.

The court noted that because the impugned order was passed by the District Magistrate, the petitioner had an efficacious alternative remedy by way of a revision before the Divisional Commissioner under Section 32(vi) of the Control Order, 2016.

Applying the principle of judicial discretion to ensure justice is not barred by procedural technicalities, the court found it appropriate to direct the petitioner to the statutory revisional forum while ensuring that the delay—accrued during the pendency of the writ—would not prevent the case from being heard on its merits.

The court directed the petitioner to file a revision petition within one month of the order and ordered the Divisional Commissioner to condone the delay and dispose of the revision within three months from the date of filing.

All interlocutory applications were disposed of accordingly.