Availability of Statutory Revisionary Remedy Bars Writ Jurisdiction Against Cancellation of PDS License

The petitioner, a Fair Price Shop licensee (No. 125 of 2016) in East Champaran, challenged the order dated 05-02-2018 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer (S.D.O.), Pakridayal, which cancelled his license.

This cancellation was subsequently affirmed by the District Magistrate, East Champaran, in Supply Case No. 06/2018 via an order dated 25-06-2019.

The petitioner approached the High Court under Article 226 seeking a Writ of Certiorari to quash these orders and restore his license.

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.

2. Whether the Court should condone the limitation period for the petitioner to approach the appropriate revisional authority.

Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, specifically Section 32(iii), which provides for an appeal to the District Officer against license cancellation; Section 32(v), regarding stay of orders during pendency; and Section 32(vi), which provides for a revision before the Divisional Commissioner against appellate orders or due to non-disposal of an appeal within sixty days.

Section 5 of the Limitation Act regarding the condonation of delay.

The Court observed that the petitioner sought to challenge orders for which a statutory machinery already exists. While the petitioner had already approached the District Magistrate (the appellate authority), the Court noted that since the District Magistrate heads the Selection Committee, a further remedy of revision is provided under Section 32(vi) of the Control Order, 2016.

The Court determined that instead of exercising extraordinary writ jurisdiction, the petitioner must exhaust the alternative remedy by filing an application before the Divisional Commissioner.

Regarding the concern over the expired limitation period, the Court found it equitable to allow the petitioner to file the revision late, given the intervening litigation in the High Court.

The Court held that the authority concerned shall condone the delay and dispose of the matter on merits within three months, ensuring the petitioner is provided a fair opportunity of hearing. All interlocutory applications were disposed of accordingly.