Writ petition challenging PDS license cancellation is not maintainable where statutory alternative remedy of appeal exists.

The petitioner, a Public Distribution System (PDS) dealer holding License No. 899/2013 in Siwan, challenged Memo No. 1190 dated 09-09-2015 issued by the Sub Divisional Officer, Siwan Sadar.

The impugned order cancelled the petitioner’s license, allegedly without providing an opportunity for a hearing or serving the underlying show-cause notice.

The petitioner approached the High Court via writ jurisdiction seeking the quashing of the cancellation and restoration of the license.

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 limitation period for filing an appeal due to the pendency of the writ petition.

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 the cancellation of a license may appeal to the District Officer within thirty days of receipt of the order.

The principles of Section 5 of the Limitation Act regarding the condonation of delay in filing such an appeal.

The Court noted the respondents’ preliminary objection regarding the existence of a statutory alternative remedy.

Upon reviewing Section 32(iii) of the 2016 Order, the Court found that the petitioner had a direct administrative remedy to appeal the cancellation before the District Magistrate.

The Court acknowledged the petitioner's concern regarding the expiry of the limitation period while the writ was pending.

Consequently, rather than adjudicating the merits of the cancellation or the alleged lack of natural justice, the Court determined that the appropriate course of action was to re-route the petitioner to the appellate forum, provided that the delay in filing was protected by judicial direction.

The Court ordered the District Magistrate to condone the delay in filing and to dispose of the appeal on its merits within three months from the date of filing. All pending interlocutory applications were also disposed of.