Principal Secretary must consider PDS licence-cancellation representation in light of subsequent acquittal.

The petitioner’s Public Distribution System licence, No. 59/2010, was cancelled by the Sub-Divisional Officer on 14 September 2014.

The District Magistrate upheld the cancellation on 25 March 2015, and the Divisional Commissioner dismissed the petitioner’s revision on 27 June 2017.

The petitioner sought to quash those orders, submitting that he had since been acquitted in the criminal proceedings and relying on Rule 29 of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016.

The State pointed to the Principal Secretary’s revisional power under Rule 32(vii).

1. Whether the petitioner’s subsequent acquittal in the criminal proceedings warranted reconsideration of the cancellation of his PDS licence.

2. Whether the petitioner should pursue the remedy of representation to the Principal Secretary under Rule 32(vii), rather than obtain direct relief in the writ petition.

Rule 29 of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016 provides for cancellation of a licensee’s licence upon conviction for specified offences; if the conviction is annulled in appeal or revision, the licence may be restored subject to the prescribed representation and fee requirements.

Rule 32(vii) empowers the Principal Secretary/Secretary to call for records concerning orders made under the Order and pass an appropriate order where, among other things, an authority exercised power illegally or failed to exercise its powers.

The judgment cites no precedent.

Although the petitioner argued that acquittal precluded further proceedings, the text of Rule 29 reproduced in the judgment addresses conviction and annulment of conviction.

The Court did not decide whether the petitioner’s acquittal legally invalidated the earlier licence-cancellation orders.

Instead, it considered the remedy under Rule 32(vii) an alternative and efficacious means for the petitioner to place the acquittal and relevant records before the Principal Secretary.

It directed that the representation be considered on merits, including with regard to Rule 29, and required notice and an opportunity of hearing before any order was passed.

Given that the writ petition had been filed in 2017, the authority was also directed to construe limitation liberally.

The petitioner was directed to file a representation before the Principal Secretary within one month of receiving or producing a copy of the judgment, with relevant documents, including those relating to his acquittal.

The Principal Secretary was directed to decide it on merits within three months, after giving the petitioner notice and an opportunity of hearing, and to communicate the decision to the parties.

The authority was directed to consider Rule 29 and construe limitation liberally.