Petitioner Must Exhaust Alternative Remedy Under Rule 32(vii) of Bihar PDS Control Order Before Seeking Writ.

The petitioner, Manti Devi, held a Public Distribution System (P.D.S.) dealership license (No. 21 of 2007) in Nagar Panchayat Barauli, Gopalganj. Her license was cancelled by the Sub-divisional Officer (SDO), Gopalganj, via an order dated 24.09.2012 following a show-cause notice regarding alleged irregularities

The petitioner challenged this cancellation through an appeal before the Collector, Gopalganj, which was dismissed on 18.12.2012

Subsequently, a revision application filed before the Commissioner, Saran Division, was also dismissed on 25.03.2022

The petitioner moved the High Court seeking a Writ of Certiorari to quash these orders and a Writ of Mandamus to restore her license

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable when an alternative statutory remedy is available under the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016

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. The Secretary can intervene if the subordinate authority exercised powers not entrusted to them, acted illegally without considering facts, or failed to exercise their powers properly

The Court did not adjudicate upon the merits or demerits of the cancellation order

Instead, it focused on the procedural availability of a statutory remedy. The Court observed that under Rule 32 (vii) of the 2016 Order, the petitioner has an "alternative and effective remedy" of filing a representation before the Principal Secretary

Since the petitioner had not exhausted this administrative channel, the Court determined that the proper course of action was to permit the petitioner to approach the departmental head. The Court further noted that because the petitioner had been pursuing the matter in the High Court, the authority should be liberal in considering the limitation period for such a representation

It granted liberty to the petitioner to file a representation before the Principal Secretary within two months. The Court directed the Principal Secretary to pass a reasoned order in accordance with the law after providing the petitioner with a notice and an opportunity for a hearing. This exercise must be completed within two months from the date of receipt of the representation. All interlocutory applications were also disposed of.