Writ petition challenging PDS license cancellation is maintainable but relegated to statutory revision with limitation condoned.

The petitioner, a P.D.S. shop license holder, challenged the cancellation of his license via an order dated 02.09.2005 issued by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM), West Muzaffarpur

This order was subsequently upheld by the Collector, Muzaffarpur (Appellate Authority) in Supply Appeal Case No. 05 of 2009 dated 07.11.2017

The petitioner contended that the cancellation was procedurally flawed as the enquiry report was never supplied to him, constituting a violation of the principles of natural justice

During the writ proceedings, the respondents pointed out the availability of a statutory alternative remedy

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable in light of the alternative remedy of revision available under the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016

2. Whether the petitioner can be granted liberty to approach the revisional authority despite the expiry of the limitation period

Section 32(vi) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, which provides that a revision may be filed before the Divisional Commissioner against an order passed in appeal by the District Officer

Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, regarding the power of an authority to condone delays in filing petitions

The court observed that while the petitioner alleged a violation of natural justice (non-supply of enquiry report), a specific statutory hierarchy for grievances exists under the 2016 Order

Under Section 32(vi), the Divisional Commissioner is the competent authority to hear revisions against appellate orders passed by the Collector/District Magistrate

Since the petitioner expressed a willingness to pursue this statutory remedy but feared dismissal based on time-barrage, the court determined that the interests of justice would be served by directing the petitioner to the appropriate forum while ensuring the delay—accrued during the pendency of the writ—did not preclude a hearing on the merits

The Court ordered the Divisional Commissioner to condone the delay and dispose of the revision on its merits within two months of filing

All pending interlocutory applications were disposed of accordingly