Facts
The petitioner, John Pascal, held PDS License No. 01 of 1987. His license was cancelled by the Sub-Divisional Officer cum Licensing Officer (Respondent No. 4) on 30.08.2013
Source reference: p. 1-2The petitioner filed an appeal before the District Magistrate (Respondent No. 2), which was subsequently dismissed on 13.07.2018 in Case No. C.M.R. 402 of 2017-18
Source reference: p. 1The petitioner approached the High Court via a writ petition seeking certiorari to quash both the original cancellation order and the appellate order
Source reference: p. 1Issues
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
Source reference: p. 2-32. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a condonation of delay for approaching the revisional authority after the expiry of the limitation period
Source reference: p. 4-5Law Applied
Section 32(iii) [of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016] provides that an aggrieved person may appeal a license cancellation to the District Officer
Source reference: p. 2Section 32(vi) [of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016] provides for a revision before the Divisional Commissioner if the appeal is not disposed of within sixty days or against an order passed in the appeal
Source reference: p. 3Section 5 of the Limitation Act regarding the power to condone delay in filing representations/applications
Source reference: p. 4Reasoning
The court observed that while the petitioner challenged the appellate order of the District Magistrate, a statutory alternative remedy in the form of a 'Revision' before the Divisional Commissioner exists under Section 32(vi) of the 2016 Order
Source reference: p. 3-4The court noted that since the District Magistrate heads the Selection Committee, he cannot review his own orders in certain contexts, making the Divisional Commissioner the appropriate forum for further grievance
Source reference: p. 4Regarding the petitioner's concern over the lapsed limitation period, the court determined that the interests of justice required allowing the petitioner to approach the revisional authority, with a direction to that authority to condone the delay under the principles of the Limitation Act
Source reference: p. 4-5Holding
The court declined to interfere with the impugned orders under writ jurisdiction due to the availability of an alternative remedy. It disposed of the writ petition by directing the petitioner to file a representation/revision before the Divisional Commissioner within one month
The court ordered the concerned authority to condone the delay, provide a fair hearing to the petitioner, and dispose of the matter within three months from the date of filing. All interlocutory applications were disposed of accordingly
Source reference: p. 5Original Court PDF
John Pascal,vsThe State of Bihar
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in