Writ petition disposed of for exhaustion of alternative remedy under Section 32(vii) of Bihar PDS Control Order.

The petitioner, a Public Distribution System (PDS) dealer in Araria, challenged a series of administrative orders that culminated in the cancellation of his PDS License (No. 01K/2018).

The Sub-Divisional Officer, Araria, cancelled the license on April 25, 2020, under the PDS Control Order, 2016.

Subsequent appeals and revisions were rejected: the Collector, Araria, dismissed the appeal on August 12, 2021, and the Divisional Commissioner, Purnea, rejected the revision application on September 6, 2022.

The petitioner approached the High Court seeking a Writ of Certiorari to quash these orders and restore his license.

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

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

This provision 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. The Secretary may intervene if the lower authority exercised powers not entrusted to them, acted illegally without considering facts, or failed to exercise their powers.

The Court did not delve into the merits or demerits of the petitioner’s claims regarding the license cancellation.

Instead, it focused on the procedural hierarchy established by the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016.

Upon reviewing the reliefs sought, the Court observed that the petitioner has a viable alternative remedy by filing a representation before the Principal Secretary under Section 32(vii).

Since the petitioner had not exhausted this statutory channel of revision before approaching the High Court, the Court determined that the appropriate course of action was to redirect the petitioner to the specialized administrative authority designated by law.

It directed the petitioner to file a representation before the Principal Secretary within four weeks.

The Court ordered that any delay in filing such representation shall be condoned and the authority must dispose of the matter within three months after hearing all concerned parties. All interlocutory applications were disposed of accordingly.