Availability of an effective statutory remedy warrants disposal of the writ petition without adjudicating merits.

The petitioner challenged the order dated 18 July 2023 passed by the Commissioner, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur, in P.D.S. Appeal Case No. 41 of 2023, whereby her appeal against the decision of the District-level Selection Committee was rejected.

She sought quashing of the Commissioner’s order and a direction for issuance of a fair-price-shop licence under Clause 8 of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, asserting that she was an unemployed woman who possessed the requisite qualifications and had obtained higher marks than the private respondent.

During hearing, the petitioner relied upon Rule 32(vii) of the 2016 Control Order, which empowers the Principal Secretary/Secretary of the Department to exercise revisional or supervisory jurisdiction over orders passed by specified authorities.

Whether the writ petition should be entertained when the petitioner had an alternative and effective remedy of filing a representation before the Principal Secretary under Rule 32(vii) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to a direction for issuance of a fair-price-shop licence or adjudication on the merits of her challenge to the appellate/revisional order and related cancellation decision.

The Court applied Rule 32(vii) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, under which the Principal Secretary/Secretary may call for records, suo motu or upon representation, where the Divisional Commissioner, District Officer, licensing authority, or Sub-Divisional Officer has acted without jurisdiction, exercised powers illegally without considering the facts, or failed to exercise jurisdiction; the Principal Secretary may thereafter pass an appropriate order.

The Court followed the general principle that writ jurisdiction may be declined where an alternative and effective statutory remedy is available.

Without examining the merits of the petitioner’s claim to the fair-price-shop licence, the Court held that Rule 32(vii) provided an alternative and effective remedy against the impugned order of the appellate/revisional authority and the cancellation order.

Since the Principal Secretary was statutorily empowered to examine whether the subordinate authorities had acted illegally, without jurisdiction, or without considering the relevant facts, the Court considered it appropriate to direct the petitioner to pursue that remedy rather than adjudicate the matter in writ jurisdiction.

The Court also directed that the petitioner be given notice and an opportunity of hearing before any decision was taken.

The authority was directed to liberally consider any delay, since the petitioner had approached the High Court within time.

The authority was directed to provide notice and a hearing, decide the representation within three months of its receipt, and communicate the decision to the parties.

All interlocutory applications, if any, were also disposed of.