Statutory appellate remedy must be pursued before challenging PDS licence cancellation in writ jurisdiction.

The petitioner, Chandra Devi, held Public Distribution Shop licence No. 76J/2016.

The Licensing Authority-cum-Sub-Divisional Officer, Araria, cancelled her licence by order dated 11 July 2022, Memo No. 792, on the ground of non-renewal.

She filed the writ petition seeking quashing of the cancellation order and restoration of the licence upon payment of the renewal fee.

During the proceedings, the respondents pointed out that the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016 provided an appellate and revisional remedy against orders refusing renewal or cancelling a fair price shop licence.

The petitioner’s counsel stated that the petitioner intended to file a representation, but the prescribed limitation period had expired, and sought condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

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

Whether the petitioner could be permitted to pursue the statutory remedy despite expiry of the limitation period for filing the representation/appeal?

Whether the competent authority should be directed to condone the delay and decide the petitioner’s representation on merits?

The Court applied Clause 32(iii) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, which permits a person aggrieved by refusal to issue or renew, or cancellation of, a fair price shop licence to appeal to the District Officer within thirty days of receipt of the order.

Clause 32(v) empowers the appellate authority to stay the operation of the impugned order pending disposal of the appeal, while Clause 32(vi) provides for revision before the Divisional Commissioner where the appeal is not disposed of within sixty days or where the appellate order is challenged.

The Court consequently applied the principle that a writ petition ordinarily should not be entertained where an efficacious alternative statutory remedy is available.

It also accepted the petitioner’s request for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

The relief sought directly challenged the cancellation of the petitioner’s PDS licence, an order for which Clause 32 expressly prescribed an appellate remedy before the District Officer and a further revisional remedy before the Divisional Commissioner.

Since the petitioner had not pursued that statutory mechanism, the Court declined to examine the merits of the cancellation order in writ jurisdiction.

However, recognising the petitioner’s contention that the limitation period had expired, the Court permitted her to file the representation before the competent authority and directed that the delay be condoned.

The authority was therefore required to consider and decide the matter on merits rather than reject it solely on limitation.

The petitioner was directed to file her representation before the concerned authority within one month from receipt of the order.

The concerned authority was directed to condone the delay and dispose of the representation within three months from the date of filing.

No order was made quashing the cancellation order or directly restoring the PDS licence.

Any interlocutory applications were also directed to stand disposed of.