Available statutory representation remedy under Section 32(vii) warrants disposal of the writ petition.

The petitioner challenged the order dated 17 August 2023 passed in PDS Appeal Case No. 72 of 2022, whereby her complaint against the District Level Selection Committee, Muzaffarpur’s order contained in Memo No. 490 dated 11 March 2022 was rejected.

The petitioner sought quashing of the appellate order on the ground that the relevant facts and legal issues had not been properly considered.

During the hearing, the respondents relied on the alternative remedy available under Section 32(vii) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016.

Whether the writ petition challenging the order dated 17 August 2023 was maintainable when the petitioner had an alternative remedy of filing a representation under Section 32(vii) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016?

Whether the petitioner should be directed to pursue the statutory representation remedy before the Principal Secretary, Food and Civil Supply Department?

The Court applied Section 32(vii) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, which empowers the Principal Secretary/Secretary of the Department to call for records relating to orders passed by the Divisional Commissioner, District Officer, licensing authority, or Sub-Divisional Officer, either suo motu or on representation, where such authority has exercised powers not entrusted to it, acted illegally without considering the facts, or failed to exercise its powers.

The availability of an effective alternative statutory remedy was treated as a sufficient reason to decline immediate adjudication of the writ petition on merits.

The Court noted that the petitioner’s challenge concerned orders arising under the public distribution system and that Section 32(vii) specifically provided a mechanism for seeking examination of such orders by the Principal Secretary.

Since the petitioner had not exhausted this statutory remedy, the Court declined to examine the merits of the challenge or determine whether the impugned orders were legally sustainable.

Instead, it directed the petitioner to pursue the remedy contemplated by Section 32(vii), while protecting her from any objection based on delay and requiring consideration of the representation after notice and hearing to all concerned parties.

The petitioner was directed to file a representation before the Principal Secretary under Section 32(vii) within four weeks from receipt of the judgment.

Any delay in filing the representation was directed to be condoned.

The Principal Secretary was required to decide the representation within three months of its filing, after issuing notice and providing an opportunity of hearing to all concerned parties, and to communicate the resulting order to them.

Any pending interlocutory applications were also disposed of.