Rule 32(vii) provides an alternative remedy to challenge PDS licensing orders before the Principal Secretary.

The petitioner challenged the Commissioner, Koshi Division’s order dated 3 June 2023 in P.D.S. Revision Case No. 22 of 2023, concerning the P.D.S. licence granted to respondent no. 8.

He sought to have the order and licence set aside and the licence granted to him instead.

The petitioner relied on Rule 32(vii) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, which provides for the Principal Secretary to examine specified orders and pass an appropriate order.

Whether the petitioner should be directed to pursue the alternative remedy of making a representation to the Principal Secretary under Rule 32(vii) of the 2016 Control Order rather than having the writ petition decided on its merits.

Whether directions should be issued concerning the time for making the representation, its consideration, and the petitioner’s opportunity to be heard.

Rule 32(vii) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016 authorises the Principal Secretary/Secretary to call for records relating to orders passed under the Order by specified authorities, suo motu or on a representation, and to pass an appropriate order if satisfied that an authority exercised powers not entrusted to it, exercised its powers illegally without considering the facts, or failed to exercise its powers.

The Court treated this provision as an available alternative remedy for the petitioner’s challenge.

Because Rule 32(vii) provided a route for the petitioner to challenge the impugned order before the Principal Secretary, the Court declined to adjudicate the legality of the Commissioner’s order or the licence on the merits.

It permitted the petitioner to make a representation and directed that any delay be construed liberally, noting that he had approached the Court within time.

The Court also required notice and an opportunity of hearing before any decision, with the resulting order to be communicated to the parties.

The petitioner was granted liberty to file a representation before the Principal Secretary within one month of receiving the order; the Principal Secretary was directed to decide it in accordance with law within three months thereafter.

Any delay in filing was to be construed liberally, and the petitioner was to receive notice and an opportunity of hearing.

Interlocutory applications, if any, were also disposed of.