Writ petition dismissed where alternative remedy of revision exists against PDS license cancellation orders.

The petitioner, a Public Distribution System (PDS) licensee (License No. 11/2018), challenged the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO), Madhepura, dated 30.12.2021, which cancelled his license.

This cancellation was subsequently affirmed by the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Madhepura, in PDS Appeal Case No. 05/2021 via an order dated 22.07.2022.

The petitioner approached the High Court seeking the quashing of both orders through a writ petition.

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 of revision available under the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016.

2. Whether the court should direct the appellate authority to condone the delay in filing the revision petition due to the lapse of the limitation period.

The court applied Section 32(vi) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, which mandates that a revision against an order passed in an appeal by the District Officer may be filed before the Divisional Commissioner.

The rule specifies that such a revision should ideally be disposed of within two months.

Additionally, the court took cognizance of Section 5 of the Limitation Act regarding the condonation of delay in filing statutory remedies.

The court observed that the petitioner’s grievance pertained to an order passed by the District Magistrate in a Supply Appeal Case.

Under the statutory framework of the 2016 Control Order, specifically Section 32(vi), the petitioner has a prescribed alternative remedy to file a revision before the Divisional Commissioner.

Although the petitioner argued that the limitation period for filing such a revision had already expired, the court found it appropriate to relegate the matter to the statutory authority rather than adjudicating the merits under writ jurisdiction.

To ensure the petitioner was not left without a remedy due to procedural delays, the court exercised its discretion to direct the Divisional Commissioner to entertain the revision and condone the delay, provided it was filed within a specified timeframe.

The court ordered the petitioner to file a revision petition before the Divisional Commissioner within four weeks of receiving the judgment.

It further directed the Divisional Commissioner to condone the delay and dispose of the revision on its merits within two months of filing.

All pending interlocutory applications were consequently disposed of.