Writ challenging PDS license cancellation is not maintainable due to alternative remedy under Section 32(vii) of Control Order.

The petitioner, a Public Distribution System (PDS) license holder (License No. 11 of 2012), challenged three successive administrative orders: the cancellation of his license by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Banka, dated March 6, 2021; the dismissal of his appeal by the Collector, Banka, dated August 26, 2022; and the dismissal of his revision application by the Divisional Commissioner, Bhagalpur, dated February 8, 2023.

The petitioner sought a writ to set aside these orders under the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016.

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable when an alternative statutory remedy is available under the Control Order, 2016.

2. Whether the petitioner should be directed to exhaust the remedy of filing a representation before the Principal Secretary of the Department.

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

This provision empowers the Principal Secretary/Secretary of the Department to call for records and review orders passed by the Divisional Commissioner, District Officer, or Licensing Authority, either suo motu or upon representation, if the subordinate authority exercised powers not entrusted to them, acted illegally without considering facts, or failed to exercise their powers.

The court did not delve into the merits or demerits of the license cancellation.

Upon hearing both parties and examining Section 32 (vii) of the 2016 Order, the court found that the petitioner had a statutory right to file a representation before the Principal Secretary against the impugned orders.

Highlighting the hierarchy of administrative remedies, the court determined that the petitioner must first exhaust this departmental channel before seeking extraordinary relief under writ jurisdiction.

It directed the petitioner to file a representation before the Principal Secretary within four weeks. The court further ordered that any delay in filing such representation shall be condoned and commanded the authority to dispose of the matter within three months after providing all concerned parties an opportunity for a hearing. Interlocutory applications were disposed of accordingly.