Facts
The petitioner challenged the cancellation of his Public Distribution System licence by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Motihari, and the Collector-cum-District Magistrate’s order affirming that cancellation in appeal.
Source reference: p. 2, para. 1The petitioner alleged, among other grounds, that no show-cause notice had been issued.
Source reference: p. 2, para. 1During the writ proceedings, the State pointed to the revision remedy under Section 32(vi) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016.
Source reference: p. 3, paras. 2–3The petitioner expressed his intention to pursue revision but stated that the limitation period had expired, and sought a direction permitting the Divisional Commissioner to entertain it under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
Source reference: p. 3, para. 4Issues
1. Whether the petitioner should pursue the statutory revision remedy against the Collector’s appellate order rather than obtain adjudication of the merits in the writ petition.
Source reference: p. 3, paras. 2–42. Whether the Divisional Commissioner should be directed to entertain the revision despite the delay in filing it.
Source reference: p. 3, para. 4; p. 4, para. 5Law Applied
Section 32(vi) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016 provides for revision before the Divisional Commissioner against an order passed in appeal, and states that the revision is to be disposed of within two months.
Source reference: p. 3, para. 2Section 32(v) concerns interim protection during the pendency of an appeal.
Source reference: p. 3, para. 2The petitioner invoked Section 5 of the Limitation Act to seek condonation of delay; the Court ultimately directed that the delay in filing the revision be condoned.
Source reference: p. 3, para. 4; p. 4, para. 5Reasoning
The Court accepted that the petitioner had an alternative statutory remedy by way of revision under Section 32(vi), and therefore directed him to raise his grounds, including the alleged absence of a show-cause notice, before the Divisional Commissioner.
Source reference: pp. 3–4, paras. 3–5Because the petitioner stated that the time for filing revision had expired, the Court addressed the delay directly by ordering that it be condoned.
Source reference: p. 4, para. 5It also prescribed a timetable for the revision and required that the petitioner be heard.
Source reference: p. 4, para. 5Holding
The writ petition was disposed of with liberty and a direction to the petitioner to file a revision before the Divisional Commissioner within one month of receiving or producing the order, raising all his grounds.
The Divisional Commissioner was directed to condone the delay and decide the revision within three months of its filing, after giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing.
Source reference: p. 4, paras. 5–6Any interlocutory applications were also disposed of.
Source reference: p. 4, para. 7Acts & Sections Cited
1 provisions across 1 statute referred to in this judgment. Each provision opens on LawLens.
Limitation Act, 19631
Original Court PDF
Dinesh KumarvsThe State of Bihar
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
