Writ petition challenging PDS license cancellation is non-maintainable where an efficacious alternative remedy of appeal exists.

The petitioner, a Public Distribution System (PDS) license holder (License No. 08/07-08), challenged the office order dated 08/09/2011 issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sikharna, Dhaka, which terminated his license.

The petitioner sought the setting aside of the termination order and restoration of the license with all benefits.

The respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition, arguing that the petitioner had failed to exhaust the statutory alternative remedy available under the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016.

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

2. Whether the court should direct the appellate authority to condone the delay in filing the appeal due to the lapse of the limitation period.

Section 32(iii) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, which stipulates that any person aggrieved by the cancellation of a license may appeal to the District Officer within thirty days of the receipt of the order.

Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, regarding the power of the authority to condone delays in filing appeals when sufficient cause is shown.

The Court observed that the reliefs sought by the petitioner—specifically the restoration of a cancelled license—fall directly within the scope of the appellate mechanism provided under Section 32(iii) of the Control Order, 2016.

While acknowledging the petitioner’s concern that the limitation period for such an appeal had already lapsed, the Court determined that the interest of justice would be served by redirecting the petitioner to the appropriate statutory forum rather than entertaining the writ on merits.

The Court reasoned that since the petitioner intended to seek remedy through the District Magistrate, a direction to condone the delay and hear the matter on merits was appropriate to ensure the alternative remedy remained efficacious.

The Court directed the petitioner to file an appeal before the concerned District Magistrate within four weeks; the District Magistrate is ordered to condone the delay in filing and to dispose of the appeal on its merits within a period of three months from the date of filing.