Availability of Statutory Alternative Remedy Ousts Writ Jurisdiction in PDS Licence Cancellation Disputes

The petitioner, a Public Distribution System (PDS) license holder (License No. 1/85), challenged three successive orders: (i) the cancellation of his license by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Bhagalpur on 15.03.2017

the dismissal of his appeal by the Collector, Bhagalpur on 31.03.2022 for non-appearance

the rejection of his revision petition by the Commissioner, Bhagalpur Division on 07.12.2022 solely on the grounds of limitation without merits

The petitioner sought a writ of certiorari to quash these orders and a mandamus to restore his license

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable in light of the available statutory alternative remedy under the controlling Order?

2. Whether the court should direct the administrative authority to hear the matter on merits despite prior procedural dismissals?

Section 32 (vii) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016.

This provision empowers the Principal Secretary/Secretary of the Department to call for records and review orders passed by the Divisional Commissioner, District Officer, or Licensing Authority, either suo moto or upon representation, if the authority exercised powers not entrusted to them, acted illegally without considering facts, or failed to use their powers

The court observed that the petitioner sought to quash orders that were dismissed on procedural grounds—specifically non-appearance and limitation—rather than on the merits of the license cancellation

Upon the respondents raising a preliminary objection regarding the availability of an alternative remedy, the court analyzed Section 32 (vii) of the 2016 Control Order

The court determined that since the Principal Secretary holds the statutory power to review the legality and factual considerations of the lower authorities' orders, the petitioner must exhaust this remedy before seeking relief via writ jurisdiction

Consequently, the court declined to adjudicate the merits at this stage and redirected the petitioner to the appropriate administrative forum

The court ordered the Principal Secretary to condone any delay in filing, provide an opportunity for a hearing to all concerned parties, and dispose of the representation within three months. All interlocutory applications were disposed of accordingly