Rule 32(vii) provides an efficacious alternative remedy warranting disposal of the writ petition.

The petitioner, a P.D.S. dealer at Panchayat Berthu, challenged the order dated 16 July 2013 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Hilsa, terminating his dealership and cancelling his licence.

His statutory appeal, Supply Appeal No. 14 of 2015, was dismissed by the District Magistrate, Nalanda, on 29 January 2019, and his subsequent revision, B.T.P.D.S. Control Revision No. 57 of 2023, was dismissed by the Divisional Commissioner, Patna, on 20 June 2023.

The petitioner therefore invoked the writ jurisdiction of the High Court, seeking quashing of all three orders and restoration to the post of P.D.S. dealer with consequential benefits.

Whether the writ petition should be entertained when the petitioner had an alternative statutory remedy under Rule 32(vii) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016?

Whether the petitioner should be granted liberty to approach the Principal Secretary by way of a representation challenging the revisional/appellate orders and the original order cancelling his dealership licence?

The Court applied Rule 32(vii) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, which empowers the Principal Secretary/Secretary of the department to call for records, either suo motu or on representation, where the Divisional Commissioner, District Officer, licensing authority, or Sub-Divisional Officer has exercised jurisdiction not entrusted to him, exercised powers illegally without considering the facts, or failed to exercise jurisdiction; the Principal Secretary may thereafter pass an appropriate order.

The Court further applied the principle that the High Court may decline to exercise writ jurisdiction where an alternative and efficacious statutory remedy is available.

The Court did not examine the merits of the petitioner’s challenge to the cancellation of his P.D.S. dealership or to the dismissal of his appeal and revision.

It held that Rule 32(vii) provided the petitioner with an alternative and efficacious remedy before the Principal Secretary, including scrutiny of the orders passed by the subordinate authorities for jurisdictional error, illegality, failure to consider relevant facts, or failure to exercise power.

Accordingly, instead of adjudicating the writ petition on merits, the Court directed that the petitioner be permitted to pursue the statutory remedy by filing a representation.

The petitioner was granted liberty to file a representation before the Principal Secretary under Rule 32(vii) challenging the orders of the Revisional/Appellate Authority and the original order cancelling his dealership, within one month from receipt of the judgment.

The Principal Secretary was directed to pass an appropriate order in accordance with law within three months of receiving the representation.

Any delay was to be construed liberally because the petitioner had approached the High Court within time.

The petitioner was also required to be given notice and an opportunity of hearing, and the final order was to be communicated to him.