Writ Petition Dismissed for Existence of Statutory Alternative Remedy Under Bihar PDS (Control) Order, 2016.

The petitioner, a Public Distribution System (PDS) license holder (License No. 23/2012), challenged an order dated 21.08.2019 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Banka.

The impugned order cancelled the petitioner’s license for alleged non-compliance with points 25 and 27(i) of the Bihar Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016.

The petitioner approached the High Court seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the cancellation and a mandamus to restore the license for his livelihood.

The respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition due to the availability of statutory alternative remedies.

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable despite the existence of alternative statutory remedies of appeal and revision under the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016.

2. Whether the court should grant liberty to the petitioner to approach the appellate authority after the expiry of the limitation period.

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

Section 32(v) empowers the Appellate Authority to stay the operation of the impugned order pending appeal.

Section 32(vi) provides for a revision before the Divisional Commissioner if the appeal is not disposed of within sixty days or against the appellate order itself.

Section 5 of the Limitation Act was considered regarding the condonation of delay in filing such representations/appeals.

The Court observed that the reliefs sought by the petitioner fell squarely within the ambit of the statutory machinery provided under the 2016 Control Order.

Since the petitioner sought to challenge an administrative order of license cancellation, the Court found it appropriate to direct the petitioner toward the specialized appellate forum rather than exercising its extraordinary writ jurisdiction.

The Court determined that in the interests of justice, the petitioner should be permitted to file a representation/appeal with a direction to the authority to condone the delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, provided it is filed within a specific timeframe.

The Court directed the petitioner to file a representation/appeal before the concerned authority within four weeks from the date of the order and the authority was directed to condone the delay and dispose of the matter on merits within three months from the date of filing.