Statutory representation under Section 32(vii) constitutes an alternative remedy to writ jurisdiction.

The petitioner challenged the order dated 17 February 2023 passed by the Commissioner, Koshi Division, Saharsa, in Supply Review Case No. 133 of 2022, by which her supply review case was rejected.

The proceedings arose in the context of earlier orders passed in CWJC No. 7867 of 2019 and MJC No. 2203 of 2022.

The petitioner sought quashing of the Commissioner’s order through the present writ petition.

During hearing, the respondents relied upon Section 32(vii) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, which provides a statutory representation/revisional remedy before the Principal Secretary.

Whether the writ petition challenging the Commissioner’s order was maintainable when the petitioner had an alternative remedy of filing a representation before the Principal Secretary under Section 32(vii) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016.

Whether the petitioner should first pursue the statutory remedy without the High Court examining the merits of the impugned orders.

The Court applied Section 32(vii) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016.

Under that provision, the Principal Secretary/Secretary of the department may call for records relating to an order passed by the Divisional Commissioner, District Officer, licensing authority, or Sub-Divisional Officer, either suo motu or on representation, where such authority has exercised powers not entrusted to it, exercised its powers illegally without considering the facts, or failed to exercise its powers; the Principal Secretary may then pass an appropriate order.

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

The Court noted that the relief sought directly challenged the impugned orders and that Section 32(vii) expressly provided the petitioner with a remedy by way of representation before the Principal Secretary.

Since the statutory remedy was available, the Court declined to examine the merits or demerits of the petitioner’s challenge at that stage and directed her to pursue the prescribed remedy instead.

To prevent prejudice caused by delay, the Court directed that any delay in filing the representation be condoned and required the Principal Secretary to decide it after notice and an opportunity of hearing to all concerned parties.

The petitioner was directed to file a representation before the Principal Secretary within four weeks from receipt of the order; any delay was to be condoned.

The Principal Secretary was directed to dispose of the representation within three months of its filing, after issuing notice and granting hearing to all concerned parties, with the decision to be communicated to them.

Any pending interlocutory applications were also disposed of.