Mandatory Exhaustion of Alternative Statutory Remedies Prior to Exercising Writ Jurisdiction Under Article 226.

The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking to quash an order dated 21-01-2023 passed by the District Level Selection Committee, Kaimur.

This order selected Respondent No. 6 as a P.D.S. (Public Distribution System) dealer for Village Panchayat-Sivo based on a report by the Sub Divisional Officer, Bhabhua.

The petitioner, an applicant for the same license, alleged that the decision was made without providing her an opportunity to be heard, despite her being a party in a prior Supply Appeal Case.

The petitioner further sought to quash the consequential order dated 01-03-2023 regarding the allocation of the license to Respondent No. 6.

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

The court applied Section 32 (vii) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016.

This provision empowers the Principal Secretary/Secretary of the Department to call for records and review orders passed by the Divisional Commissioner, District Officer, Licensing Authority, or Sub Divisional Officer, either suo moto or upon representation.

It specifies that the Secretary may pass appropriate orders if the lower authority exercised powers not entrusted to them, acted illegally without considering facts, or failed to use their powers.

The court did not delve into the merits or demerits of the petitioner's claims regarding her eligibility or the alleged procedural lapses.

Instead, prompted by the respondents' counsel, the court examined the statutory framework of the Control Order, 2016.

It observed that Section 32 (vii) provides a specific administrative remedy for aggrieved parties to file a representation before the Principal Secretary.

Since the petitioner sought to challenge orders passed by the Selection Committee and the Licensing Authority, the court determined that the petitioner must exhaust this alternative statutory remedy before seeking extraordinary relief under writ jurisdiction.

It directed the petitioner to file a representation before the Principal Secretary within four weeks.

Furthermore, the Court ordered that the Principal Secretary shall condone any delay in filing, provide all concerned parties an opportunity for a hearing, and dispose of the representation within three months of filing.

The final order must be communicated to all parties involved.