Writ petition dismissed on grounds of alternative remedy; revision lies before Divisional Commissioner against appellate order.

The petitioner, a P.D.S. dealer holding License No. 25/2007, challenged the cancellation of her license.

The cancellation order was initially passed by the S.D.O. Phulparas on 03-03-2016.

The petitioner subsequently filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority-cum-District Magistrate, Madhubani (Supply Appeal No. 55/16-17), which was dismissed via an order dated 31-01-2017.

The petitioner then approached the Patna High Court under writ jurisdiction, seeking to quash the appellate order on the grounds of lack of cogent proof and denial of adequate opportunity to defend.

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

2. Whether the petitioner can be granted liberty to file a revision despite the expiry of the limitation period.

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

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

The Court observed that while the petitioner challenged the appellate order through a writ, a specific statutory remedy for "Revision" exists under Section 32(vi) of the 2016 Control Order.

Dealing with the petitioner’s concern regarding the expiration of the limitation period for such a revision, the Court noted that the existence of an alternative remedy generally precludes the exercise of writ jurisdiction unless extraordinary circumstances are shown.

The Court determined that the appropriate course of action was to redirect the petitioner to the Divisional Commissioner, ensuring that the Petitioner is afforded a fair opportunity and that the delay is condoned to facilitate a merit-based disposal.

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