Writ Petition Dismissed for Re-evaluation where Alternative Statutory Remedy of Revision is Available

The petitioner and his elder brother (Respondent No. 8) were jointly granted a Public Distribution System (P.D.S.) license (No. 1973 of 1993).

In 2011, the brother resigned from the license, leading the S.D.O., Dumraon to accept the resignation and stop the supply of materials.

Following a previous High Court direction in CWJC No. 7211 of 2022, the District Magistrate, Buxar reheard the matter in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 76 of 2011 but dismissed it on 13.01.2023.

The petitioner challenged this dismissal, seeking to quash the acceptance of the resignation and the appellate order.

1. Whether the P.D.S. license could be legally cancelled or resigned by one joint holder without the consent of the other.

2. Whether the Writ petition is maintainable in light of the alternative statutory remedies available under the Control Order.

The court primarily applied the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016. Rule 5 outlines the process for licensing and eligibility.

Section 32(iii) provides for an appeal to the District Officer against licensing decisions, and Section 32(vi) provides for a revision before the Divisional Commissioner against appellate orders.

the law does not recognize the issuance of a joint P.D.S. license to two individuals.

The court observed that the petitioner sought to challenge an order passed by the District Magistrate in an appellate capacity.

Under Section 32(vi) of the Control Order, 2016, a revision is explicitly available before the Divisional Commissioner against such appellate orders.

the concept of a "joint license" itself was "unknown to law".

However, since a specific statutory hierarchy for grievances exists, the court determined that the petitioner must exhaust the alternative remedy of revision rather than seeking extraordinary relief under Article 226.

The Writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to file a revision before the Divisional Commissioner within one month.

The court ordered that if such a revision is filed, the delay shall be condoned and the authority must dispose of the matter on merits within three months.