Exhaustion of Alternative Statutory Remedy Before Principal Secretary Under Rule 32(vii) of Control Order, 2016

In CWJC No. 6333 of 2023, Rakesh Kumar Mandal sought the quashing of an order dated 12.09.2022 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Purnea, which settled a revision petition regarding the selection of private respondent No. 8

In CWJC No. 14872 of 2022, Kaushal Paswan challenged the same order dated 12.09.2022, which resulted in the cancellation of his license (No. 06F/2021)

Both parties approached the High Court seeking certiorari to set aside the Commissioner's order and mandamus for their respective selections/reinstatements

1. Whether the petitioners have an alternative and effective statutory remedy available to challenge the order of the Revisional/Appellate Authority

2. Whether the Court should exercise its extraordinary writ jurisdiction when a specific administrative remedy exists under the PDS Control Order

The Court applied Rule 32(vii) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016. This rule empowers the Principal Secretary or Secretary of the Department to call for records and review orders passed by the Divisional Commissioner, District Officer, or Licensing Authority, either suo moto or upon representation, if the authority has exercised unauthorized powers, acted illegally without considering facts, or failed to exercise its powers

The Court observed that the grievance of both petitioners stems from the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Purnea, in a Supply Revision Case. Rather than adjudicating on the merits or demerits of the rival claims, the Court focused on the principle of exhaustion of alternative remedies.

By citing Rule 32(vii) of the 2016 Control Order, the Court demonstrated that a statutory hierarchy exists for redressal, specifically providing for a representation to the Principal Secretary of the Food and Consumer Protection Department. The Court reasoned that since the petitioners have an "alternative and effective remedy" to challenge the impugned order and the cancellation of the license before a departmental head, the writ petitions should be disposed of to allow for the exercise of that administrative remedy

The Court directed the Principal Secretary to pass orders strictly in accordance with law within three months, after providing the petitioners with a notice and an opportunity for a hearing. Additionally, the Court directed the authority to liberally consider any limitation issues (delay) since the petitioners had been pursuing the matter before the High Court. All interlocutory applications were disposed of accordingly