Writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked when an efficacious alternative remedy of appeal exists under Bihar PDS Order.

The petitioner, representing the Fair Price Dealers Association (Registration No. 2525 of 1981), filed a writ petition seeking a direction to restrain Respondents No. 6 and 7 from using the Association’s registration number and name while operating from a different address.

The petitioner further sought official recognition for their branch as the genuine Association and a prohibition against the private respondents' use of the registration number in correspondences, citing a previous High Court order in CWJC No. 16359 of 2015.

During the proceedings, the respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ due to the availability of an alternative statutory remedy.

1. Whether the petitioner has an alternative statutory remedy available under the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, precluding the exercise of writ jurisdiction.

2. Whether the delay in approaching the appellate authority can be condoned to allow the petitioner to pursue the said alternative remedy.

Section 32(iii) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, which provides that any person aggrieved by an order of the licensing authority (regarding issuance, renewal, or cancellation of licenses) may appeal to the District Officer/District Magistrate within thirty days.

Section 5 of the Limitation Act to facilitate the entertainment of the appeal despite the expiry of the prescribed limitation period.

The Court observed that the reliefs sought by the petitioner—specifically regarding the recognition of the Association and the conduct of dealers—fell within the regulatory ambit of the licensing and administrative authorities under the Public Distribution System.

Rather than adjudicating the factual disputes regarding the misuse of the registration number in a writ jurisdiction, the Court determined that the petitioner must first exhaust the efficacious alternative remedy provided under Section 32(iii) of the 2016 Order.

Recognizing that the limitation period for such an appeal had already lapsed, the Court exercised its discretion to ensure the petitioner was not left without a forum, directing the District Magistrate to condone the delay and decide the matter on its merits.

The Court held that the District Magistrate shall condone the delay in filing and must dispose of the appeal within three months from the date of filing. All interlocutory applications were consequently disposed of.