Writ Petition Dismissed for Existence of Alternative Remedy Under Rule 32(vii) of Bihar TPDS Order 2016

The petitioner, a resident of Sikandarpur village, applied for a license to operate a Public Distribution System (PDS) shop following an advertisement for his revenue village.

His application was apparently unsuccessful or rejected, leading him to file a supply revision case (No. 159/2022) before the Commissioner, Magadh Division, Gaya.

On 20-04-2023, the Commissioner passed an order which the petitioner sought to quash via this writ petition.

The petitioner further requested a direction to the respondents to appoint him as the license holder, asserting his eligibility as a local resident.

1. Whether the petitioner has an alternative and effective statutory remedy against the order passed by the Revisional Authority under the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016.

Rule 32(vii) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016.

Rule 32(vii) empowers the Principal Secretary or Secretary of the Department to call for records and review orders passed by the Divisional Commissioner, District Officer, or Licensing Authority, either suo moto or upon representation, if it is found that such authorities exercised powers not entrusted to them, acted illegally without considering facts, or failed to exercise their powers.

The Court did not delve into the merits or demerits of the petitioner’s claim regarding the PDS license.

The Court focused on the principle of exhaustion of alternative remedies.

By citing Rule 32(vii), the Court observed that the petitioner has a specific statutory avenue to challenge the Commissioner’s order by filing a representation before the Principal Secretary.

The Court reasoned that since an effective and alternative remedy exists within the governing Control Order of 2016, the writ jurisdiction should not be exercised at this stage, provided the petitioner is granted liberty to approach the appropriate executive authority for redressal.

The Court directed the authority to liberally construe the limitation period since the petitioner was pursuing this writ.

The Principal Secretary is directed to pass a reasoned order in accordance with law within two months of receiving the representation, ensuring the petitioner is given a notice and an opportunity for a hearing. All pending interlocutory applications were also disposed of.