Writ petition dismissed as premature where statutory representation remedy under Section 32(vii) remained available.

The petitioner, Shiv Shankar Singh, challenged the order dated 23 June 2022 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Patna, in E.C. Act Revision No. 43 of 2022, whereby his revision was dismissed.

During the writ proceedings, the respondents relied upon Section 32(vii) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, which permits the Principal Secretary/Secretary of the concerned department to call for records and examine orders passed by specified authorities.

The High Court considered whether the petitioner should pursue that statutory remedy before invoking writ jurisdiction.

1. Whether the writ petition challenging the Divisional Commissioner’s order was maintainable when the petitioner had an alternative remedy of filing a representation under Section 32(vii) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016.

2. Whether the petitioner should be directed to approach the Principal Secretary under Section 32(vii), without the High Court examining the merits of the impugned orders.

The Court applied Section 32(vii) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, under which the Principal Secretary/Secretary may, suo motu or on representation, call for records relating to orders passed by the Divisional Commissioner, District Officer, licensing authority, or Sub-Divisional Officer, where such authority has acted without jurisdiction, illegally, without considering the facts, or failed to exercise its powers, and may pass an appropriate order.

The Court also applied the principle that a writ petition may ordinarily be declined where an efficacious alternative statutory remedy is available.

The petitioner’s challenge was directed against the order dismissing his revision, but Section 32(vii) provided a specific statutory mechanism for seeking examination of orders passed by the authorities named therein.

Since the petitioner had not exhausted that alternative remedy, the Court considered it appropriate not to adjudicate the merits of the impugned orders.

Instead, the Court directed the petitioner to submit a representation before the Principal Secretary, while requiring that any delay be condoned and that the representation be decided after notice and an opportunity of hearing to all concerned parties.

The petitioner was directed to file a representation under Section 32(vii) before the Principal Secretary within four weeks of receiving the order.

Any delay was to be condoned, and the representation was to be decided within three months from its filing.

The concerned parties were to be given notice and an opportunity of hearing, and the resulting order was to be communicated to them.

Any pending interlocutory applications were also disposed of.