Writ Petition Dismissed for Mandatory Exhaustion of Alternative Statutory Remedy for Revision under PDS Control Order.

The petitioner, a Fair Price Shop licensee (License No. 79/2016), challenged the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Supaul, dated 25.03.2021, which cancelled her license.

She subsequently filed an appeal (Supply Appeal No. 05/2021) before the Collector, Supaul, which was rejected via order dated 12.08.2021.

The petitioner approached the High Court seeking a writ of certiorari to quash both orders and a direction for the restoration of her license.

During the proceedings, the respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding the availability of an alternative statutory remedy.

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

2. Whether the delay in approaching the revisional authority can be condoned to allow the petitioner to exhaust the statutory remedy.

Section 32(vi) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, stipulates that a revision may be filed before the Divisional Commissioner against an order passed in appeal or due to the non-disposal of an appeal within sixty days.

Section 5 of the Limitation Act regarding the condonation of delay in filing such statutory revisions.

The court observed that the petitioner sought to challenge an appellate order passed by the Collector and under the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, a specific hierarchy of remedies exists, and Section 32(vi) provides a clear alternative remedy of "Revision" before the Divisional Commissioner.

The court determined that the interests of justice would be served by directing the petitioner to the appropriate forum rather than adjudicating the merits under writ jurisdiction, reasoning that providing a fixed window to file the revision, coupled with a mandate to the Divisional Commissioner to condone the delay and provide a fair hearing, would preserve the petitioner’s right to a statutory remedy.

The court directed the petitioner to file a revision petition before the Divisional Commissioner within four weeks and ordered the Divisional Commissioner to condone the delay, provide a fair opportunity to the petitioner, and dispose of the revision within three months from the date of filing.