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

The petitioner, a Fair Price Shop dealer, challenged the cancellation of his Public Distribution System (PDS) license.

The cancellation order was passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Respondent No. 3) on 15.11.2016.

The petitioner subsequently filed an appeal (Supply Appeal Case No. 45 of 2016), which was dismissed by the District Magistrate (Respondent No. 2) on 20.09.2019.

The petitioner approached the High Court through a Writ Petition alleging violations of the principles of natural justice, specifically that no memo of charges was provided and the show-cause notice contained an incorrect license number.

During the proceedings, the respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding the availability of an alternative statutory remedy.

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable in light of the alternative remedy of revision available under the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016.

2. Whether the court can direct the condonation of delay for filing a revision after the statutory limitation period has lapsed.

Section 32(vi) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, which stipulates that a revision may be filed before the Divisional Commissioner against an order passed in an appeal.

Section 5 of the Limitation Act, which allows for the extension of the prescribed period of limitation in certain cases upon showing sufficient cause.

The court observed that the petitioner was challenging an appellate order passed by the District Magistrate.

Under the statutory framework of the Control Order, 2016, specifically Section 32(vi), the petitioner has a right to file a revision before the Divisional Commissioner.

The court noted the petitioner’s willingness to pursue this alternative remedy despite the expiry of the limitation period.

Rather than adjudicating on the merits of the alleged procedural lapses (such as the non-service of charges), the court determined that the existence of a specific statutory revisional forum necessitated the exhaustion of that remedy.

To ensure the petitioner was not left remediless due to the time spent pursuing the writ, the court exercised its discretion to direct the revisional authority to condone the delay.

The petitioner was granted four weeks to file a revision petition before the Divisional Commissioner.

The court ordered that the Divisional Commissioner shall condone the delay in filing and must dispose of the revision on its merits within three months from the date of filing.

All pending interlocutory applications were consequently disposed of.