Availability of an effective Rule 32(vii) remedy warrants disposal of the writ petition without examining merits.

Santosh Prasad challenged the order dated 10 August 2023 passed by the Commissioner, Magadh Division, Gaya in Supply Appeal Case No. 137 of 2022, whereby the Commissioner set aside the Selection Committee’s order dated 2 December 2019 granting a Public Distribution System (PDS) licence to the petitioner.

The petitioner sought quashing of the Commissioner’s order and a direction to the authorities to grant him the PDS licence.

During the hearing, the petitioner relied on Rule 32(vii) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, which permits the Principal Secretary to examine orders passed by specified authorities where jurisdictional or legal errors are alleged.

1. Whether the writ petition challenging the Commissioner’s order and the consequential cancellation of the petitioner’s PDS licence should be entertained when an alternative remedy of representation was available under Rule 32(vii) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016?

2. Whether the petitioner should be granted liberty to approach the Principal Secretary for examination of the impugned orders under Rule 32(vii), without the High Court adjudicating the merits?

The Court applied Rule 32(vii) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, which empowers the Principal Secretary/Secretary of the concerned department to call for records, either suo motu or on representation, concerning orders passed by the Divisional Commissioner, District Officer, licensing authority, or Sub-Divisional Officer.

The provision authorises corrective action where the authority exercised powers not entrusted to it, acted illegally without considering the facts, or failed to exercise its powers.

The Court further applied the principle that a writ petition may be declined or disposed of where the petitioner has an alternative and effective statutory or administrative remedy.

The Court noted that the petitioner had an alternative and effective remedy under Rule 32(vii) to challenge the order of the Revisional/Appellate Authority and the cancellation order before the Principal Secretary.

Since that remedy could address the alleged illegality or failure to properly consider the relevant facts, the Court declined to examine the merits or demerits of the dispute in the writ proceedings.

Instead, it considered it appropriate to grant the petitioner liberty to pursue the statutory remedy.

The Court also directed that the Principal Secretary provide notice and an opportunity of hearing before passing any order and liberally construe any delay because the petitioner had approached the High Court within time.

The petitioner was granted liberty to file a representation before the Principal Secretary challenging the Commissioner’s order and the cancellation order within one month from receipt of the judgment.

The Principal Secretary was directed to pass a reasoned order in accordance with law within three months of receiving the representation, after giving the petitioner notice and an opportunity of hearing, and to communicate the decision to him.

Any delay in filing the representation was to be construed liberally.