Writ petition disposed of directing petitioner to exhaust alternative remedy under Rule 32(vii) of Bihar TPDS Order.

The petitioner, a PDS dealer holding License No. 91/2016, challenged three successive administrative orders: the initial cancellation of his license by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Jehanabad, dated 31.08.2017; the dismissal of his appeal by the District Magistrate on 26.11.2018; and the dismissal of his revision petition by the Divisional Commissioner, Magadh Division, on 27.04.2023.

The petitioner sought a writ of certiorari to quash these orders and a mandamus to restore his license.

During the hearing, the petitioner’s counsel directed the court’s attention to the statutory remedy available under the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016.

1. Whether the petitioner has an alternative and effective statutory remedy available under the Control Order of 2016 despite the dismissal of his revision

2. Whether the court should exercise its extraordinary writ jurisdiction when a departmental representation route remains open

The court primarily applied 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 from subordinate authorities (Divisional Commissioner, District Officer, or Licensing Authority) either suo moto or upon representation.

The Secretary is authorized to interfere if the subordinate authority exceeded its entrusted power, acted illegally without considering facts, or failed to exercise its power.

The court did not adjudicate on the merits or demerits of the license cancellation. Instead, it focused on the principle of exhaustion of alternative remedies.

By identifying Rule 32(vii) as an "effective remedy," the court determined that the petitioner could still seek relief through a formal representation to the Principal Secretary.

To ensure equity, the court reasoned that the delay in filing such a representation should be treated leniently by the authorities since the petitioner was actively pursuing the matter in the High Court.

The court further emphasized procedural fairness by directing that the petitioner must be granted a notice and an opportunity to be heard during this administrative process.

The Principal Secretary was directed to pass a speaking order in accordance with the law within three months of receipt.

The court further held that the authority shall liberally construe the limitation period in favor of the petitioner.

All interlocutory applications were disposed of accordingly.