Revisional authority directed to condone delay and decide the statutory challenge on merits.

The petitioner, Jibachh Ram, held a fair price shop licence bearing No. 20/07 in Madhubani District.

The Sub-Divisional Officer-cum-Licensing Authority, Phulparas, cancelled his licence by order dated 5 February 2019 under the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016.

The petitioner’s statutory appeal, Supply Appeal Case No. 02/2019-20, was dismissed by the District Magistrate, Madhubani, by order dated 2 August 2022, thereby affirming the cancellation.

The petitioner challenged both orders before the High Court, alleging, inter alia, that no notice had been issued to him regarding the alleged violation of Clause 27(1) and (2) of the 2016 Control Order.

During the hearing, the respondents pointed out that a revision lay before the Divisional Commissioner under Section 32(vi) of the 2016 Control Order.

Whether the writ petition was maintainable when the petitioner had an alternative statutory remedy of revision before the Divisional Commissioner under Section 32(vi) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016?

Whether the petitioner should be permitted to file a delayed revision raising, inter alia, the allegation that no notice was issued for the alleged violation of Clause 27(1) and (2) of the 2016 Control Order?

The Court applied Section 32(vi) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, which permits a revision before the Divisional Commissioner against the order passed in appeal, or where the appeal is not disposed of within sixty days; such revision is to be disposed of within two months.

Section 32(v) empowers the Appellate Authority, pending disposal of an appeal, to stay the operation of the order under challenge for the period necessary to provide a reasonable opportunity or until disposal of the appeal, whichever is earlier.

The Court also invoked the principle that a writ petition may ordinarily be declined where an efficacious alternative statutory remedy is available.

The delay in filing the revision was directed to be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

The Court noted that the petitioner’s challenge was directed against the District Magistrate’s appellate order dated 2 August 2022 and that Section 32(vi) expressly provided a revisional remedy before the Divisional Commissioner.

Although the petitioner raised a natural justice objection based on the alleged absence of notice under Clause 27(1) and (2), he acknowledged that he intended to pursue the statutory revision.

Since the revisional authority was competent to examine the legality of the cancellation and the alleged procedural violation, the High Court considered it inappropriate to adjudicate the merits in the writ jurisdiction.

In view of the lapse of the limitation period, the Court directed that the delay be condoned so that the petitioner could avail himself of the statutory remedy.

The petitioner was directed to file the revision within one month from receipt of the judgment.

The Divisional Commissioner was directed to condone the delay in filing the revision and dispose of it within three months from the date of filing.

The High Court did not set aside the cancellation order or the appellate order on merits.

Any pending interlocutory applications were also disposed of.