Writ Petition Disposed of Directing Exhaustion of Alternative Statutory Remedy Under Rule 32(vii) of BTPDS Order 2016

The petitioner, a Public Distribution System (PDS) licensee (License No. 25/2018), challenged the order dated 06.04.2023 passed by the Commissioner, Patna Division in BTPDS Control Revision Case No. 316 of 2022.

This revisional order had confirmed the Appellate Court’s (Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Kaimur) order dated 25.09.2021, which directed the cancellation of the petitioner’s license.

Consequently, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Bhabhua, cancelled the license on 09.10.2021.

The petitioner approached the High Court seeking the quashing of these orders.

1. Whether the petitioner has an alternative and effective statutory remedy available under the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, before invoking the writ jurisdiction of the High Court

Rule 32(vii) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016.

This rule empowers the Principal Secretary/Secretary of the Department to call for records and review orders passed by the Divisional Commissioner, District Officer, or Licensing Authority, either suo moto or upon representation, if there is an allegation of jurisdictional error, illegality, or failure to exercise power.

The Court focused on the principle of exhausting alternative remedies. Without delving into the factual merits or demerits regarding the license cancellation, the Court observed that Rule 32(vii) provides a specific statutory channel for grievance redressal through a representation to the Principal Secretary.

The Court reasoned that since the petitioner had not utilized this "alternative and effective remedy" against the concurrent findings of the Appellate and Revisional authorities, the writ petition should be disposed of to allow the petitioner to pursue that administrative channel.

The Court further directed that the authority must liberally consider the limitation period, acknowledging that the petitioner was bona fide litigating before the High Court.

The Court directed the Principal Secretary to pass a reasoned order in accordance with the law after providing the petitioner with a notice and opportunity of being heard, within a period of three months from the receipt of the representation.