Mandamus is declined where an alternative statutory remedy of revision exists for PDS license cancellation.

The petitioner, a PDS license holder (License No. 75/2016), challenged the cancellation of his license by the Sub-Divisional Officer (S.D.O.), Gopalganj, dated 28.07.2021

This cancellation was subsequently upheld by the District Magistrate, Gopalganj, in Supply Appeal No. 12/2021 via an order dated 04.07.2023

The petitioner approached the High Court seeking a writ of Mandamus to set aside these orders and restore the license, asserting a lack of judicial application by the lower authorities

During 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 provided under the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016

2. Whether the court should direct the appellate authority to condone the delay in filing the revision due to the lapse of the limitation period

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

Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, regarding the power of an authority to condone delays in filing statutory petitions

The Court observed that the petitioner sought to bypass the established statutory hierarchy by filing a writ petition against the District Magistrate's appellate order

However, the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, expressly provides for a revisionary stage before the Divisional Commissioner

The Court noted the petitioner's willingness to pursue this alternative remedy, provided the hurdle of the expired limitation period was addressed

Consequently, the Court determined that rather than adjudicating on the merits of the license cancellation, the appropriate course of action was to re-route the petitioner to the specialized statutory forum, ensuring that the delay caused by the pursuit of the writ petition did not preclude the petitioner's right to a revisionary hearing

It further ordered that the Divisional Commissioner shall condone the delay in filing and dispose of the revision on its merits within two months from the date of filing. All pending interlocutory applications were disposed of accordingly